Can Takahashi Close The Gap On Patrick Chan? | Page 11 | Golden Skate

Can Takahashi Close The Gap On Patrick Chan?

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I see a lot has been written since I started this post, with interruptions, so I need to read them. However, I want to point out that values of GOE go both ways. The flip side of proportionately lower penalties on low quality is lower rewards for higher quality. If GOE value for a quad is increased for the purpose of penalty, it will also increase the difference between a front runner with quads of high quality from those attempting to close the gap. An unintended consequence?

Not necessarily. A couple of years ago the way the GOE values were set for quads and triple axels was in increments of 1 point (1, 2, 3) for positive GOES, same as for triples, but in increments of 1.5 (1.5, 3.0, 4.5) for negative GOEs.

To me, that was the best approach and I wish they would go back to it. Apparently quad proponents were successfully able to argue against it, however.

And at the same time the negative GOE values for triples have also been reduced, although the positive ones are still in 1-point increments.

For lower-value elements, it had already been the case that the negative GOE values were smaller than the positive ones.

The precedent already exists that the values of positive and negative GOEs for the same element are not the same.

If anything, I'd like to see the positive GOE values raised for some elements to encourage quality, or nonquantifiable difficulty of execution, by making +2 or +3 on an easier element worth more than base value on a more difficult element. (How much more difficult to be negotiated)
 

Boeing787

On the Ice
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
But any way you slice it, if Chan's actual performances score 20 points above Takahashi's theoretically best program, then Chan can fall a lot of times and still be ahead on points.

PCS is actually affected by the TES. If Patrick falls 5 times, his PCS will be reduced by about 7 points. So the 20 point lead is not equivalent to 5 falls. I'd say 3 at most.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Looking at it this way, this principle would be even more true if falling on a jump meant 0 points toward the total score, which I think is what you would prefer. Falling on a harder jump would lose you more points than falling on an easier jump...

With a fall = no cigar (no points) system, then these two skaters would earn the same total for their jumps, assuming they got the same GOEs and the same distribution bonuses:

4T+3T, 4T (fall), 3A+2T, 3A, 3Lz, 3F+2T+2Lo, 3Lo, 3S

4T, 3A+2T, 3LZ+3T, 3A, 3Lz (fall), 3F+2T+2Lo, 3Lo, 3S

Let's simplify the jump layout so the difference is pinpointed.

First skater: 4T(fall) = 0 points, 3Lz 6.0. Total 6.0
Second skater: 4T = 10.3 points, 3Lz (fall) = 0 points. Total 10.3 points.

Is this fair? Of course it is. The first skater did a triple Lutz, while the second skater did a quadruple toe!

The first example attempted a harder repeat jump.

That is the question. Should you get any points at all for attempting to do something,

They both fell on the repeat jump and got no credit for it.

The theory is, you get credit for what you so, not for what you attempt. What the first skater did was a triple Lutz. What the second skater did was a quadruple toe. Should the second skater complain, "Yes, but I tried to do a 4T. I tried really hard."

So the jump content will not be the deciding factor here.

The jump content on paper will not be the deciding factor. The deciding factor will be the (successful) jump content on the ice.

[Caveat: I am arguing the case for 0 credit for a fall just to see where it leads. As to what I personally think about the whole thing, I don't know.

It is easy to stand on the sidelines and criticize. It is quite another to create, more or less from scratch, a scoring system for figure skating. My hat is off to the ISU and national skating federation folks who put in the hours :rock: -- however fun it may be to nitpick this and that detail afterwards.]
 
Last edited:

Violet Bliss

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Comparing this season's scores:

Takahashi SP

84.66 SC
90.43 NHK
76.49 GPF
83.44 4CC
Average 83.755

LP

153.21 SC
169.32 NHK
172.63 GPF
161.74 4CC
Average 164.225


Chan SP

83.28 SC
84.16 TEB
86.63 GPF
87.95 4CC
Average 85.505

LP

170.46 SC
156.44 TEB
173.67 GPF
185.99 4CC
Average 171.64

Takahashi's average Total = 247.98
Takahashi's best SP + Best LP = 90.43 + 172.63 = 263.06
Takahashi's lowest SP + Lowest LP = 83.44 + 153.21 = 236.65

Chan's average = 257.145
Chan's best SP + best LP = 87.95 + 185.99 = 273.94 (4CC)
Chan's lowest SP + lowest LP = 83.28 + 156.44 = 239.72

Momentum: Takahashi's scored his second lowest in both SP and LP at the latest (4CC). Chan scored his highest in both programs at 4CC. With the exception of TEB LP (when he was sick), he has improved his scores in both programs progressively with the season. However, 4CC being held in high altitude may have contributed to Takahashi underperforming.

The average difference is 9.165 favoring Chan.

Takahashi's best combination (263.06) beats Chan's worst combination (239.72) by 23.34. That's the scenario many are hoping for, right?
 

skatinginbc

Medalist
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
I am arguing the case for 0 credit for a fall just to see where it leads. As to what I personally think about the whole thing, I don't know.
I'm inclined to argue that a "failed" jump should receive 0 credit. We can define "failure" from three aspects: (1) entrance, (2) rotation, and (3) landing. If a skater fails on all three (wrong edge, downgraded, and fall), he fails, PERIOD.
 

Violet Bliss

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
So statistics prove me right. Patrick is two falls ahead of Dai.

Depends on the falls. Random falls incur only one point deduction each but a bunch of them will likely kill the PCS. OTOH, one fall on a downgraded quad will put him behind an average Takahashi.
 

Violet Bliss

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Comparing their head to head competitions tells a different story because Takahashi did his best and Chan did his worst in their separate events.

Chan won every event with the score difference of

SC 15.87

GPF 11.18

4CC 28.76
 

Violet Bliss

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
That's why there come the complaints: "They can compete, but they cannot win." "The winner is already decided before the competition."

Usually in sports including figure skating, this fact and the dominant competitor is celebrated and exalted, even as a legend. But not if you are ABC I suppose.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I'm inclined to argue that a "failed" jump should receive 0 credit. We can define "failure" from three aspects: (1) entrance, (2) rotation, and (3) landing. If a skater fails on all three (wrong edge, downgraded, and fall), he fails, PERIOD.

So "fails" means "fails on all three," and "succeeds" means succeeds in at least one of the three?

The other way to look at it is that an element succeeds when all three phases are executed properly, and fails otherwise.

SkateFiguring said:
Takahashi's best combination (263.06) beats Chan's worst combination (239.72) by 23.34.

In my opinion the situation is actually pretty straightforward. For Takahashi to win the World Championship two things must happen.

(a) Daisuke's performance is technically near perfect and artistically enthralling; and

(b) Patrick's performance is not his best.

Daisuke can't do anything one way or the other about (b), and he should try to do (a) regardless.
 

hurrah

Medalist
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Wow, so perfect Dai needs Patrick to fall 2-3 times to win. I get that that's just the scoring system but that's likely to leave fans screaming wuzrobbing, because perfect Dai will be spectacular.

Multiple falls really should affect the Performance/Execution Component seriously.

And also, there was some discussion earlier that Patrick's quads and half loop layout freed up a pass for him to include a double-axel, and I think that's a case of taking advantage of a loophole in the system and it shouldn't actually be allowed.
 

deedee1

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
I'm hoping for the following:
Takahashi's best SP + Best LP > Chan's average
or Chan's best SP + best LP > Takahashi's best SP + Best LP
or Mao's best SP + best LP > Chan's lowest SP + lowest LP :biggrin:


Takahashi's best SP + Best LP > Chan's average

Yes, in reality, this would be the best we could hope for this season.

We do not complain at all if the near perfect Patrick leaves everyone in the dust.
But, say, Patrick with 2 falls may still leave everyone in the dust. That makes Men's field less exciting, in spite of such a deep field with a lot of talents and unuique styles...sigh...
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Usually in sports including figure skating, this fact and the dominant competitor is celebrated and exalted, even as a legend.

I think that's it exactly. A lot of fans think Patrick is still wet behind the ears and are not ready to grant him legend status just yet. Let him get a couple more world championships and an Olympic gold medal under his belt -- they'll come around. ;)

And also, there was some discussion earlier that Patrick's quads and half loop layout freed up a pass for him to include a double-axel, and I think that's a case of taking advantage of a loophole in the system and it shouldn't actually be allowed.

Oh, gosh, I don't agree at all! Patrick's 3Lz+half-loop+3S is the coolest move in skating.

Far from being a "loophole," the ISU introduced it precisely so that skaters would have a wider range of opportunities to achieve higher jump content.

The problem was that a triple-triple combo can end only with a 3T or a 3Lo. This gave skaters all kind of Zayak problems. The half-loop option allows sequences ending with a triple Salchow or even a triple flip (!) without incurring the 20% sequence deduction. (Plushenko once did a sequence ending in a triple flip, I believe. Sasha Cohen had a sequence ending in a 3S. I think Joannie Rochette did, too.) This is very cool. All skaters should try it.
 
Last edited:

hurrah

Medalist
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Oh, gosh, I don't agree at all! Patrick's 3Lz+half-loop+3S is the coolest move in skating.

Far from being a "loophole," the ISU introduced it precisely so that skaters would have a wider range of opportunities to achieve higher jump content.

The problem was that a triple-triple combo can end only with a 3T or a 3Lo. This gave skaters all kind of Zayak problems. The half-loop option allows sequences ending with a triple Salchow or even a triple flip (!) without incurring the 20% sequence deduction. (Plushenko once did a sequence ending in a triple flip, I believe. Sasha Cohen had a sequence ending in a 3S. I think Joannie Rochette did, too.) This is very cool. All skaters should try it.

I'm not questioning the combo. I'm questioning the option to fill the extra pass with a double-axel.
 

skatinginbc

Medalist
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
So "fails" means "fails on all three," and "succeeds" means succeeds in at least one of the three?
No. I meant: "If one fails on all three, it is clear he fails". There should be no room for debate. Why do we even think that someone fails the entrance, fails the rotation and fails the landing deserves a partial credit? As far as other situations (partial failure) are concerned, I will leave it to expert consensus.
In my opinion the situation is actually pretty straightforward. For Takahashi to win the World Championship two things must happen.
(a) Daisuke's performance is technically near perfect and artistically enthralling; and
(b) Patrick's performance is not his best.
Daisuke can't do anything one way or the other about (b), and he should try to do (a) regardless.
And that's rightfully so. Patrick is indeed a better skater than Dai. But if Takahashi's best SP + Best LP < Chan's average (with a fall of course), then I will cry out that another new judging system is needed, badly.
 
Last edited:

deedee1

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
To hurrah,

I agree with you. It is time to apply more penalties for multiple falls, maybe? e.g. -1 deduction for 1st fall, -2 deductions for the 2nd fall.

But, as Mathman says, a half loop sequence is so cool to watch. It's a great option for a jumper who has a good 'spring' on its take-off.
Did not Evgeni used to do something like 3A+half loop+3F before CoP?
I want to see more variety in jumping layout.
Hope more jumpers with a good 'spring', such as Kevin VdP, Miki, Nobu will do that sequence next season!
 

ImaginaryPogue

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
How about this:

No credit system

4T (solid, +1 GOE)
2A (fall)
3T (fall)
3S (fall)

Total: 11.3 points

4T (fall)
2A (0 GOE)
3T (0 GOE)
3S (0 GOE)

Total: 11.5 points

Is that what you feel would be an accurate representation of what you want to see.

Hurrah, what bothers you about having a slot used for a 2A?
 

hurrah

Medalist
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Hurrah, what bothers you about having a slot used for a 2A?

Well, the double-axel option becomes attractive to skaters who can do one type of quad and uses up two types of triples for one jump pass, like what Patrick is doing (and uses the other jump passes to repeat two types of triple-jumps), which is all good and well. I object to that skater then being able to get maybe 4 points for doing a double axel (3.3 base points plus maybe another 0.5 GOE and increase value if done in the second-half) because doing a double-axel is easy. The skater, for being able to do one type of quad not only gets more points than before at less risk for that jump, he also gets to add 4 extra points for doing something really easy.

I would not at all object if the skater filled the extra pass with a different quad (quad salchow).
 
Top