Bradley wants to 'bring home some hardware'

Not having read the posts awhile, I was surprised to learn that Mathman the sick poppy got cornered, battered and made apologize twice for saying "Chan fan paranoia". As sleek and dulcet as his words normally are, I expect him to make a little booboo sometimes, and this time he did and apologized for it. Big deal! Why so unforgiving to make him apologize twice?

SkateFiguring mentioned that Mathman's zealous praise was uncharacteristic of Chan fans on this board. It hit me that the so-called "fan" is a social construct. Enjoying and admiring Chan's skating is not enough. You have to say or behave in a certain way to be accepted as a "fan". If you praise Chan more than SkateFiguring does, you are not a Chan fan on this board, period!!!

With his penchant of taking a diplomatic and neutral stand, Mathman seldom praised Chan openly, but given his lengthy years of watching figure skating, I certainly assumed he was not blind to Chan’s talent and certainly was not surprised that he would give a high estimation of Chan’s scoring. He made a wrong choice of words and, in order to explain himself, he revealed his prediction of Chan’s scrores, which in normal situation he would have kept to himself. It was obvious to me that Mathman was sincere about what he said. Why can’t some self-styled Chan fans see it as well? Will they consider the possibility that they are too emotionally involved and therefore, for lack of a better word, biased in interpretation?

Mathman said:

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.

Click to expand...

I hope you guys are only half-joking about the earth's shape. There is a big difference between observations and explanations thereof. Scientific theory is the the latter. In ancient times people may not have been able to directly observe the roundness of the earth, and so had to infer it by scientific reasoning. But it is now indisputable that the earth is round, irrespective of how scientific theories change in the future. You can see it directly by going on an airplane/rocket/spacecraft and taking pictures up there in outer space. Similarly, although I have never visited Rome, its existence in my mind is not in the same epistemic plane as a scientific theory, as I could simply travel to Rome and verify it myself.

/end of tangent comments.

Krislite, Mathman is only making a facetious example of the "shape of the Earth" thing. He is saying that questions concerning the shape of the Earth are different (i.e. have an objective target) from questions regarding what should be the rules in figure skating (which, from the perspective of knowledge, do not have an objective target.)

However, I understand what Blades of Passion is saying, too. He often doesn't use the relative standard of the rules-of-that-time, but a standard based on how he thinks figure skating should properly be judged.

skatinginbc said:

Why so unforgiving to make him apologize twice?

Click to expand...

Nobody made him apologize or counted how many times he did it. He made posts some others reacted to, a normal daily happening on the board. He chose to apologize. I did a preemptive apology to somebody today too. Nobody made me. Arguements take place every day in the GS but not apologies. Posters choose how they behave on the board. Mathman is a big boy and as he said, he never apologized before on this board, so I don't think his decision to apologize was because of my arm-twisting technique. I don't have hard feeling against Mathman personally which I hope he can perceive. What happened was about a particular subject and a particular term he chose to used on a group of people of whom I was one. I only addressed the subject, explaining how it came across to me and some other Chan fans. (Yes, such feelings were communicated to me in preivate which was the main reason I spoke up. I wasn't going to react initially.) I don't do personal attacks and I didn't against Mathman.

SkateFiguring mentioned that Mathman's zealous praise was uncharacteristic of Chan fans on this board. It hit me that the so-called "fan" is a social construct. Enjoying and admiring Chan's skating is not enough. You have to say or behave in a certain way to be accepted as a "fan". If you praise Chan more than SkateFiguring does, you are not a Chan fan on this board, period!!!

Click to expand...

Yes I did state my observation of how Chan fans on this board generally behaved themselves. I never said how anybody should behave or there was any qualification or standard for anybody to go by. In fact, I preceded my observation with the statement that Chan must have all kinds of fans just like every other skater. I only stated what I observed on this board. By today things might already be different but it would be none of my business. So far there has been no protest on my observation and I'm not averse to accepting contrary facts presented to me. Your protest is on a construed and projected scenario that never happened and will never happen, i.e. me prescribing how fans of Patrick Chan should behave.

With his penchant of taking a diplomatic and neutral stand, Mathman seldom praised Chan openly, but given his lengthy years of watching figure skating, I certainly assumed he was not blind to Chan’s talent and certainly was not surprised that he would give a high estimation of Chan’s scoring. He made a wrong choice of words and, in order to explain himself, he revealed his prediction of Chan’s scrores, which in normal situation he would have kept to himself. It was obvious to me that Mathman was sincere about what he said. Why can’t some self-styled Chan fans see it as well? Will they consider the possibility that they are too emotionally involved and therefore, for lack of a better word, biased in interpretation?

Click to expand...

As long as Mathman is cool about this little event, which I believe we both have let passed, I don't feel any need to address and rehash it.

Mathman said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that forecloses objectivity. There is an "objective truth out there waiting to be discovered" in this case just as there is in any other scientific endeavor. Objectively, the jumps Joubert did were more difficult than the points given to him. Hundreds of skaters can do a 3Flip on the correct edge well enough to get a 0 GOE for it. Only a few skaters can do a 3Flip off the wrong edge with the quality Joubert showed and yet that effort garnered less points.

The CoP judging system is supposed to be a way to assess exactly what a skater did and to credit a skater precisely for every technical element they perform. That is why we no longer have the 6.0 judging system. If the amount of points awarded to elements is not accurately assessing their difficulty in comparison to other similar moves, then the rule which dictates it is wrong.

Joubert's 3Flip scientifically IS more difficult. This is a concrete finding that can be made by people who have the knowledge. It's different than asking "SHOULD figure skating programs be allowed to contain 7 jumping passes and 4 spins, rather than 8 jumping passes and 3 spins." There is no objective answer to that, but rather a question of opinion with regards to how the game should be structured. However, within the chosen structure the game itself, whatever it may be, there must be ACCURACY.

ImaginaryPogue said:

Comparing fair marking in figure skating to endemic racism is perhaps NOT the best analogy to make.

Click to expand...

A pile of 100,000,000 apples have no different defining qualities in and of themselves than a single apple by itself. Changing the quantity of something (magnitude would be the proper word in this case) does not change what it is. If you'd prefer another example, the amount of people killed during the genocide of a small African village (let's say 33) probably does not make the reason for that genocide any more "fair" than the genocide of World War II (6,000,000+). Logic needs to be applied equally.

Blades of Passion said:

Only a few skaters can do a 3Flip off the wrong edge with the quality Joubert showed and yet that effort garnered less points.

Click to expand...

I'm confused. Isn't that nicknamed 'lip' by the figure skating fans and people have lobbied for the scoring system (be it the 6.0 or CoP) to address the issues of taking off from the wrong edge?

This thread has gotten esoteric, and metaphors have become so stretched that its hard to figure out what they mean.

I have been told the earth is round, when it has been known since Isaac Newton told us so that it is an oblate spheroid.
http://aerospace.wcc.hawaii.edu/shape.html

The shape of the earth changes all the time. We like to think of it as fixed and firm, but in fact the lands are just dumplings floating on a soup of magma.

The Great Japan Earthquake changed the shape of the earth slightly and speeded up its rotation a bit. Japan is now 12 feet closer to North America.

http://www.themoneytimes.com/featur...-axis-tilts-days-shorten-id-101701709635.html

Likewise, apples have so many varieties, it's hard to believe anyone would try to categorize all apples by knowing a single one. The Russet is brown, the ever popular Red Delicious is completely inedible, and good only for photographing, the Cortland is a great apple, but doesn't last long. The apples that grew back of my brother's house weres no good unless shipped in a slow sailing ship to somewhere else, or otherwise aged a long time. If eaten after picking, they had the consistency of cork. Apples come in different colors, levels of sweet and tartness, and ability to stay in one pieces when cooked in a pie.

Somehow, it would be nice if this thread stretched back to its original topic--

If Bradley does well in Moscow, I expect the shape of the earth to change a bit again

I'd be interested in reading the scientific finding that Joubert's 3Flip is more difficult than Buttle's (or more accurately, a 3Flip of Joubert's type etc). Your second comment... well, I'll need to think about it.

^^^^Not just the shape of the Earth changes. Its interior and atmostphere change constantly too. Even the poles are shifting, affecting the magnetic field and many natural events happening, including the warming up of colder regions, ice melt and rising sea level. And people going nuts. At least Gaia doesn't flip herself every 11 years like the Sun! Interestingly, the ice melt actually created more land at Alaska. As the glaciers melt, the load on the land lightens and it actually rises, extending the coast line. The rest of the world's coasts won't be so lucky.

We live in very interesting time. Unfortunately, the changing of the eras is accompanied by lots of turmoils. Many natural disasters are really forewarnings for people to leave certain regions before the really big event happens.

Back to skating.....I hope Gaia doesn't do any 3F!

Blades of Passion said:

Objectively, the jumps Joubert did were more difficult than the points given to him. Hundreds of skaters can do a 3Flip on the correct edge well enough to get a 0 GOE for it. Only a few skaters can do a 3Flip off the wrong edge with the quality Joubert showed and yet that effort garnered less points.

Click to expand...

I don't think the premise is universally accepted that "being hard" should automatically mean "more points." Standing on your head on the ice is hard, but earns no points. Lots of people hold that a flip off the wrong edge is not a flip at all, or any legal jump, and "should" (if the CoP were right) get 0 points.

Mathman said:

I don't think the premise is universally accepted that "being hard" should automatically mean "more points." Standing on your head on the ice is hard, but earns no points. Lots of people hold that a flip off the wrong edge is not a flip at all, or any legal jump, and "should" (if the CoP were right) get 0 points.

Click to expand...

And remember the backflip. Difficult, but illegal. Remember that great, insolent backflip Bonaly did right in front of the judges in the '98 Olympics? She was one of the few people who could land it on one foot, which she did splendidly on this occasion. A totally illegal move, then and now, and she got as low as 4.9's for it, but I think it gave her great satisfaction, and it certainly shook things up. She knew the judges were never going to let her on the podium. So she wrote her own page in skating history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sIo6s9lUyc

^^^^^Just what I was going to bring up. As well as Oda's extra and successful jumps getting penalized every time.

Extra jumps are a different thing, as they are not allowed elements, and I've already talked in length about how entire jumping passes shouldn't be discredited just because a skater tacked an extra 2Toe or whatnot onto the end (rather, just that extra 2T should be discredited). The "wrong edge" Flip is a valid element. It's just a different technique of a defined element. Everyone already has different techniques in their jumps and spins.

With the Back Flip, ala Bonaly, that kind of element shouldn't be a scored move in skating for safety reasons. Braking your ankle is one thing; snapping your neck is a different matter. Skating is about the entire program and not just a setup of elements, as in ski jumping or gymnastics. Encouraging that kind of movement within a program is probably not a good direction for the sport. I don't feel skaters should be specifically penalized for it, though. If someone wants to a Back Flip as part of the choreography, let them. It will most likely only detract from the choreography rather than adding to it and hurt their score anyway.

fscric said:

I'm confused. Isn't that nicknamed 'lip' by the figure skating fans and people have lobbied for the scoring system (be it the 6.0 or CoP) to address the issues of taking off from the wrong edge?

Click to expand...

Taking off from the wrong edge deserves a deduction, sure. But when your Flip is good enough for a +2 or even +3 GOE when not considering the edge violation, that means you should still be getting a high amount of points for it. I find edge violations to be worse with regards to the Lutz and those edge violations should be more scrutinized. Going onto the wrong edge generally makes a Lutz easier but I've not found that to be as common with regards to the Flip. A greater amount of skaters would find the Flip to be more difficult if they had to go onto a solid outside edge to execute it, in comparison to the number of skaters who would find the Lutz to be more difficult if they had to do it from an inside edge.

The other thing to consider is that the Flip isn't supposed to take off from a deep inside edge to begin with. It should be executed from a very slight inside edge or even the flat, whereas in comparison the Lutz should be off of a DEEP outside edge ideally. Therefore, when a Lutz takes off from an inside edge (especially a very blatant inside edge), it is deviating from the ideal more than a Flip done on the outside edge deviates from the ideal.

dorispulaski said:

This thread has gotten esoteric

Click to expand...

I'm an Esoteric Warrior.

Ryan tweeted today that he spent the entire day helping his Pop build a fence.

was that closer to getting back on topic in this thread?

SkateFiguring said:

So far there has been no protest...Your protest...

Click to expand...

Hm, my protest did not count because I am not a "Chan fan" by your book? Although I am not a fan of his mouth, I actually consider myself a fan of his skating. When he fell three times in a short program, I argued that I saw improvement and believed he was heading towards the right direction, which proved several months later to be a correct assessment on my part. I remembered I was bombarded with negative responses on this board and not many "Chan fans" of today actually stood up for me at that time. Thank you for letting me know by your implicit dictation that I have been excluded from his "fan club" that you are in process of shaping, albeit unknowingly.

Let me get straight to the point: Being over defensive will make a "fan club" more exclusive rather than inclusive. I don't want to see that happen, so please tone it down or I would catch "paranoia".

ImaginaryPogue said:

I'd be interested in reading the scientific finding that Joubert's 3Flip is more difficult than Buttle's (or more accurately, a 3Flip of Joubert's type etc). Your second comment... well, I'll need to think about it.

Click to expand...

It requires a counter rotation,and that is what makes it difficult. The Flutz, however, does not counter rotate and therefore it is a Flip, and much easier to manage.

Mathman said:

I don't think the premise is universally accepted that "being hard" should automatically mean "more points." Standing on your head on the ice is hard, but earns no points. Lots of people hold that a flip off the wrong edge is not a flip at all, or any legal jump, and "should" (if the CoP were right) get 0 points.

Click to expand...

If they would stop futszing around with the wrong edge takeoffs and concentrated on the definitions of a jumps, we could end this discussion.

Only two jumps are awarded a special Wrong Edge Takeoff. So what? A wrong edge takeoff on an axel ends in a popup but it is never mentioned as a WET.

If the jump is not executed in accordance with the definition, there was no jump, and there should not be any partial credit for it. Losing the counter rotation is not a Lutz or a Walley. The Sport is sissyish enough without making things easier. If the skaters want credit for a lutz or walley they will learn how to do those jumps, or get points in other ways - but not for sloppy skating.

Mathman said:

I don't think the premise is universally accepted that "being hard" should automatically mean "more points." Standing on your head on the ice is hard, but earns no points. Lots of people hold that a flip off the wrong edge is not a flip at all, or any legal jump, and "should" (if the CoP were right) get 0 points.

Click to expand...

'hard' or 'difficult' are just semantics. The more an element is perceived as difficult the higher the base value is. While I am not convinced that the base values are uniformally correct, I have to play with them. The CoP has spoken. :think:

Joesitz said:

If they would stop futszing around with the wrong edge takeoffs and concentrated on the definitions of a jumps, we could end this discussion.

Only two jumps are awarded a special Wrong Edge Takeoff. So what? A wrong edge takeoff on an axel ends in a popup but it is never mentioned as a WET.

If the jump is not executed in accordance with the definition, there was no jump, and there should not be any partial credit for it. Losing the counter rotation is not a Lutz or a Walley. The Sport is sissyish enough without making things easier. If the skaters want credit for a lutz or walley they will learn how to do those jumps, or get points in other ways - but not for sloppy skating.

Click to expand...

What about the points skaters get when they splat? I think they need to land a jump before any points can be awarded.

Hernando said:

What about the points skaters get when they splat? I think they need to land a jump before any points can be awarded.

Click to expand...

Well, you know, and I know, and some others know that the landing validates the jump. Without it, where's the jump? how they dreamed up this partical credit nonsense is beyond me.