Can Takahashi Close The Gap On Patrick Chan?

Dragonlady · Feb 24, 2012

seniorita said:
Question, was it in 6.0 system to switch the combos? Could X skater have added a toe on his 3 lutz to make it a combo since he lost the quad combo?

Yes, he could have added the 3T to the lutz, assuming he did footwork into the quad, but unlike CoP, there was no benefit in doing so. One element would receive a -.4 deduction as incomplete. Under 6.0, it didn't matter which one because the deduction was the same. Under CoP, it behoves you to get that combo in because you would get more points for a combo than a solo jump so a miss on the jump out of steps is less of a point loss than missing both jumps of your combo.

Srin Odessa · Feb 24, 2012

seniorita said:
Question, was it in 6.0 system to switch the combos? Could X skater have added a toe on his 3 lutz to make it a combo since he lost the quad combo?

Theoretically, you could be flexible with the jump combination requirement and connecting steps solo jump requirement by having connecting steps for both jumping passes. In practice, most skaters stalked their combination jump and made sure that they did the steps for the solo jump. If the skater was down on the combination for 0.4 deduction, then adding a triple toeloop to the triple lutz the would merely satisfy one base element as opposed to another. It wouldn't negate the deduction for the fall. You could, however, receive anywhere from 0.1-0.3 deduction if the connecting steps leading up to the jump were deemed insufficient or there was a long enough lull in between the steps and the jump.

The most egregious thing you could do in the short program would be to completely omit a requirement for a hefty 0.5 deduction.

Mathman · Feb 24, 2012

gkelly said:
First question:

Are skating jumps dichotomous variables? Success or failure, yes or no, only two possible scores for the attempt?

...But skating has always been a qualititative rather than an either/or sport. It has always asked, about all its elements, not only what did you do but also how well did you do it...

This was certainly the case up until the inception of the IJS. In the current system, in principle there are two parts.

1. Either/or. This is what the tech panel does.

2. Better or worse. This is what the judges do.

Before the judges get to say better or worse, the tech panel must identify the element being judged. The element is either a level 3 combination layback spin or else it is a triple Lutz. Either/or.

So, what's a triple Lutz? A triple Lutz is a toe jump that (a) takes off from an outside back edge, (b) rotates three times in the air, and (c) lands on an outside back edge of the opposite foot. (If you don't believe me, Wikipedia credits this definition to Kristi Yamaguchi, Figure Skating for Dummies.

)

So a skater leaps into the air off an inside edge, rotates fewer than three times, and land on the seat of his pants. The technical specialist calls, "Triple Lutz!"

hurrah · Feb 24, 2012

I am all for zero points for falls. In my opinion, a successful jump becomes a jump when it is landed, and when it is not landed, it is a nonjump. For those who worry that this will discourage quads, there is a solution: just raise the point value of the difficult jumps (if it is not high enough now, that is) just enough (but not too much) so that it is worthwhile for the skaters to take the calculated risk of attempting those jumps.

Partial credit for falls is a bad idea because as has been extensively discussed in this thread, it means that Patrick with 2-3 falls (maybe even more depending on where he falls) can still beat perfect Daisuke. I am not saying that this is likely to happen as Patrick is rock solid recently and Daisuke is not, but theoretically, the present system makes this outcome possible, and this outcome would benefit no one. If Patrick with multiple falls were to win against a perfect Dai, Patrick would get snickered at for being the 'judge's favorite', ISU that approved the system would look either incompetent or corrupt, and same with the judges. You might also get a loss of viewership, or you might get a Trixie Shuba/Janet Lynn phenomenon where the public chooses its own winner and the runnersup gets the endorsement and not the gold medalist.

I know skating specialists want a judging system that they deem as an accurate way of numerizing skating skills in a detailed way, and I respect that, but if this results in a system that could possibly reward the win to someone where the public unanimously says 'Huh?', no one will really wins.

ImaginaryPogue · Feb 24, 2012

Hurrah, the corrolary to that is that success on a high value element makes up for multiple falls on lesser elements.

Mathman · Feb 24, 2012

^ That's as it should be, right? If you do a hard element you get a lot of points. If you fall on an easy element you get 0.

The winner will be the person who does a lot of hard elements and doesn't fall.

Bluebonnet · Feb 24, 2012

Mathman said:
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.

seniorita said:
I love sequences with the half loop, they are so cool and the skaters who do them seem light on their feet. What other sequence is possible to do?

Oh, add me into the group of loving that sequence! That half loop from Patrick was beautiful! I remember Scott Hamilton declared that Plushenko's 3A-half loop-3F sequence in his LP at 2002 Olympics was an "impossible combination".

hurrah · Feb 24, 2012

ImaginaryPogue said:
Hurrah, the corrolary to that is that success on a high value element makes up for multiple falls on lesser elements.

Yeah, I don't think base value of quads and triple-axel should be so high that it can easily erase mistakes on easier elements. I only suggested that they could be raised higher if the zero points for falls rule discouraged quads again. I think the key is to just keep the base value high enough so that those who are able to land it in practice will try it in competition.

I can see the validity of that worry, but I think a spectator would understand that e.g., Skater A who has landed two quads and two triple-axels but fell on two triples can win against Skater B who did not attempt them but landed one triple-axel and all the triples. Of course, it would also depend on other aspects of the performance as well. If Skater A did two quads and two triple-axels but appeared to just be skating around with nothing but crossovers and did slow spins with bad positions and an uninteresting step sequence, the spectator might question it. Close inspection and minor adjustments to CoP value system can predetermine to what extent a super jumper can be a terrible spinner and skater and still win against a good spinner and skater with average jumping abilities though, can't it?

Violet Bliss · Feb 24, 2012

hurrah said:
I am all for zero points for falls. In my opinion, a successful jump becomes a jump when it is landed, and when it is not landed, it is a nonjump. For those who worry that this will discourage quads, there is a solution: just raise the point value of the difficult jumps (if it is not high enough now, that is) just enough (but not too much) so that it is worthwhile for the skaters to take the calculated risk of attempting those jumps.

The current scoring has already been tremendously successful in encouraging quads.

Partial credit for falls is a bad idea because as has been extensively discussed in this thread, it means that Patrick with 2-3 falls (maybe even more depending on where he falls) can still beat perfect Daisuke.

Again you are ignoring reality, which is Patrick having won the Worlds Championships with not just clean, but extremely high standard of skating. Patrick winning with multiple falls over perfect Daisuke has never happened and there is no indication of it happening. It has been demonstrated already he would have still won over Daisuke in every head to head competition for over a season even if no credits whatsoever were rewarded for any fall. Your passionate devotion to your idol blinds you to the fact that Daisuke has fallen more than Patrick these last two seasons, yet you want to drastically change the scoring system based on a false belief and a fantasy scenario.

I am not saying that this is likely to happen as Patrick is rock solid recently and Daisuke is not, but theoretically, the present system makes this outcome possible, and this outcome would benefit no one. If Patrick with multiple falls were to win against a perfect Dai, Patrick would get snickered at for being the 'judge's favorite', ISU that approved the system would look either incompetent or corrupt, and same with the judges. You might also get a loss of viewership, or you might get a Trixie Shuba/Janet Lynn phenomenon where the public chooses its own winner and the runnersup gets the endorsement and not the gold medalist.

You really think your touching concern of Patrick Chan being snickered at is an incentive for drastic changes? The charges and scenario you predict would happen is happening without the tragedy of his undeserved winning over a perfect Daisuke, or anybody else. If you are concerned with the future of figure skating, you need to look for realistic solutions based on the reality of an indisputable reigning world champion and wait for the next reality the next Worlds brings.

I know skating specialists want a judging system that they deem as an accurate way of numerizing skating skills in a detailed way, and I respect that, but if this results in a system that could possibly reward the win to someone where the public unanimously says 'Huh?', no one will really wins.

If you ignore reality and are so concerned about a possible imaginary event, there are endless scenarios to imagine.

hurrah · Feb 24, 2012

SkateFiguring, I am offended that you think me such a fool that I would think that supporting zero points for falls idea would disadvantage Patrick. Patrick has a solid quad, so-so triple-axel, incredible skating skills, good spins. Nothing that I have suggested will disadvantage him.

ImaginaryPogue · Feb 24, 2012

Mathman said:
^ That's as it should be, right? If you do a hard element you get a lot of points. If you fall on an easy element you get 0.

The winner will be the person who does a lot of hard elements and doesn't fall.

.... no. The winner should be the one who best balances clean, high value elements with a strong program. If one person falls three times but lands a quad, he shouldn't beat a person who doesn't fall but doesn't land a quad, all else being equal. And this is the rub. I can't imagine a spectator understanding that a single element can make up for so much.

And that's the rub. I'm fine with partial credit, but I think it should be lowered. I think that if program components have the high degree of technical requirements as they do now, technical errors should be reflected there as well.

hurrah · Feb 24, 2012

ImaginaryPogue said:
.... no. The winner should be the one who best balances clean, high value elements with a strong program. If one person falls three times but lands a quad, he shouldn't beat a person who doesn't fall but doesn't land a quad, all else being equal. And this is the rub. I can't imagine a spectator understanding that a single element can make up for so much.

And that's the rub. I'm fine with partial credit, but I think it should be lowered. I think that if program components have the high degree of technical requirements as they do now, technical errors should be reflected there as well.

Well, another way to do it to treat falls equally. Take it out in PCS. The punishment becomes cumulatively worse the more falls you make. One fall -1, second falls, -2, third falls, -3, and so forth.

Violet Bliss · Feb 24, 2012

hurrah said:
SkateFiguring, I am offended that you think me such a fool that I would think that supporting zero points for falls idea would disadvantage Patrick. Patrick has a solid quad, so-so triple-axel, incredible skating skills, good spins. Nothing that I have suggested will disadvantage him.

Your whole post made it very clear about your concern, which is Chan winning with 3 or 4 falls over a perfect Takahashi. I just find that is not a reason to advocate such changes, which also will not address such concern as it has been demonstrated to have made hardly any difference in placements and none on Patrick's wins. I see neither grounds for your concerns nor effectiveness from your proposed solution.

eta. To answer your charge about my concern of Patrick being disadvantaged, no, I don't have such concern at all. Never have. The scoring system should not be about Chan or any single skater. I've said time and time again, somebody else will pay for ill considered changes to the scoring system. E.g. Daisuke has had more falls than Patrick. Be careful to look at facts and reality in wishing for changes. It is not a good time to believe in myths created by internet fans.

hurrah · Feb 24, 2012

SkateFiguring said:
Your whole post made it very clear about your concern, which is Chan winning with 3 or 4 falls over a perfect Takahashi. I just find that is not a reason to advocate such changes, which also will not address such concern as it has been demonstrated to have made hardly any difference in placements and none on Patrick's wins. I see neither grounds for your concerns nor effectiveness from your proposed solution.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY, THAT I AM DEEPLY AWARE OF THE FACT THAT PENALIZING FALLS WILL NOT DISADVANTAGE PATRICK. PATRICK VS DAISUKE IS BEING USED TO DISCUSS THE VALIDITY OF COP THEORETICALLY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE. THAT'S ALL.

Patrick, as of now, is unbeatable. Unbeatable no matter how CoP is amended.

(Well, actually, there might be a way to create a CoP system where Patrick becomes beatable. If CoP gave points for SEX APPEAL, Dai might win. :laugh:

)

ImaginaryPogue · Feb 24, 2012

Are all falls equal though, in terms of disruption to the program? Here's Nobunari Oda's LP at the 2010 GPF. He has two falls, and the difference is staggering. He falls on his quad, gets back into his program quickly and nails that sick 3A-3T combo. The second fall, however, is right on the landing edge of his 2A. It seems to knock the wind out of him. He actually stops for a brief moment. He then skates about a quarter/third of the rink to get back into the groove (losing all that choreography), stumbles a little bit when he attempts to do the footwork (and since footwork isn't his strong suit, the program becomes very laboured) and just in general has lost the thread. The second fall isn't more disruptive because it's the second fall. If he had two falls that resembled the first one vs one fall that resembled the second, I'd argue that the two fall program deserves higher PCS. Technically, I'd want him to get more points for that quad attempt than that double axel attempt, because I see more that is technically difficult about what he does in the former jump than the latter.

Violet Bliss · Feb 25, 2012

hurrah said:
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY, THAT I AM DEEPLY AWARE OF THE FACT THAT PENALIZING FALLS WILL NOT DISADVANTAGE PATRICK. PATRICK VS DAISUKE IS BEING USED TO DISCUSS THE VALIDITY OF COP THEORETICALLY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE. THAT'S ALL.

Patrick, as of now, is unbeatable. Unbeatable no matter how CoP is amended.

(Well, actually, there might be a way to create a CoP system where Patrick becomes beatable. If CoP gave points for SEX APPEAL, Dai might win. )

Read my edited post above. I am not concerned about Chan being disadvantaged at all. I am debating your points based on what you write about. Basically, your proposed solution is no solution to YOUR concern.

hurrah · Feb 25, 2012

ImaginaryPogue said:
Are all falls equal though, in terms of disruption to the program? Here's Nobunari Oda's LP at the 2010 GPF. He has two falls, and the difference is staggering. He falls on his quad, gets back into his program quickly and nails that sick 3A-3T combo. The second fall, however, is right on the landing edge of his 2A. It seems to knock the wind out of him. He actually stops for a brief moment. He then skates about a quarter/third of the rink to get back into the groove (losing all that choreography), stumbles a little bit when he attempts to do the footwork (and since footwork isn't his strong suit, the program becomes very laboured) and just in general has lost the thread. The second fall isn't more disruptive because it's the second fall. If he had two falls that resembled the first one vs one fall that resembled the second, I'd argue that the two fall program deserves higher PCS. Technically, I'd want him to get more points for that quad attempt than that double axel attempt, because I see more that is technically difficult about what he does in the former jump than the latter.

On an aesthetic level, no. There is a qualitative difference. But CoP is an attempt to measure figure skating as an athletic feat, a sport. A fall is a fall in sports.

ImaginaryPogue · Feb 25, 2012

hurrah said:
On an aesthetic level, no. There is a qualitative difference. But CoP is an attempt to measure figure skating as an athletic feat, a sport. A fall is a fall in sports.

Well, that's what the debate is about. A fall on a quad his deemed different than a fall on a double axel, which is different than a fall while stroking. I think that's a fair and accurate take on figure skating. Others do not.

hurrah · Feb 25, 2012

SkateFiguring said:
Read my edited post above. I am not concerned about Chan being disadvantaged at all. I am debating your points based on what you write about. Basically, your proposed solution is no solution to YOUR concern.

Well, then we are in agreement. You say that my suggestion will not disadvantage Chan. I fully agree. Maybe you have been misconstruing my concern all along.

hurrah · Feb 25, 2012

ImaginaryPogue said:
Well, that's what the debate is about. A fall on a quad his deemed different than a fall on a double axel, which is different than a fall while stroking. I think that's a fair and accurate take on figure skating. Others do not.

You've lost me. Anyway, getting back to my original assertion. Zero points for falls! (Or, treat all falls equally and take it out on PCS, making the punishment cumulatively severe the more falls they make, regardless of how they fall. I quite like that idea!)

Can Takahashi Close The Gap On Patrick Chan?

Dragonlady

Srin Odessa

Mathman

hurrah

ImaginaryPogue

Mathman

Bluebonnet

hurrah

Violet Bliss

hurrah

ImaginaryPogue

hurrah

Violet Bliss

hurrah

ImaginaryPogue

Violet Bliss

hurrah

ImaginaryPogue

hurrah

hurrah

Similar threads

Connect with us