Should Gracie or Caroline or Agnes or Mirai replace Alissa for Worlds?

If you look at Czisny's competition results, her only major international medal was GPF 2010-11. She seems to disappear every other year and her Worlds results pattern suggest a non factor this year and maybe a medal next year if she stays and the pattern holds. Quite unlikely. All in all, as lovely as she is and as much as one wants to pin the hope on her, there is nothing in her history to suggest she would be near the Worlds podium any time soon. She's off in even numbered years.

^

I know that
its the same people that are expecting too much from her
that are blaming her now if she gets a meltdown

sky_fly20 said:

^

I know that
its the same people that are expecting too much from her
that are blaming her now if she gets a meltdown

Click to expand...

If she were to surprise us this would be the year to do it, with proven Ladies Champions not competing, Asada not at her best, and the young Russians not yet joining the Senior rank.

SkateFiguring said:

I can't say I am well informed of Czisny's interviews. Wagner's statement is consistent with her take charge confident attitude this season. However, unlike her personal determination to win the US Nationals, this declared goal requires team effort and is still to unfold and be fulfilled. Czisny's quoted statements, OTOH, were responses to questions that put her on the defensive after the events when she was already feeling down on herself. I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that she didn't care or that she excused herself completely.

Click to expand...

Czisny's quoted statements??? Brightphoton never quoted Czisny. Brightphoton just made up some statements and put quotation marks around them. I really don't see why Czisny is being blamed for what Phil Hersh says in her defense (a defense, I for one, found pretty compelling, but that is beside the point). This same thing happened a few weeks ago when it was first learned that Czisny was not selected for 4CC. Others complained on her behalf, and then some posters on this forum attributed those views to Czisny herself.

At any rate, giving an explanation for one's lack of success is not the same as not accepting responsibility. Obviously, something *caused* the poor performance, and there's nothing unreasonable about Czisny saying what she thinks it was.

SkateFiguring said:

I can't say I am well informed of Czisny's interviews. Wagner's statement is consistent with her take charge confident attitude this season. However, unlike her personal determination to win the US Nationals, this declared goal requires team effort and is still to unfold and be fulfilled. Czisny's quoted statements, OTOH, were responses to questions that put her on the defensive after the events when she was already feeling down on herself. I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that she didn't care or that she excused herself completely.

Click to expand...

I was just going to post my thoughts and here ^^ they are!

I don't have any real opinion on who should go to Worlds. The team is picked and that's that. But I did notice something interesting. Take a look at the scores of the 3 ladies in question this season.

Alissa -- 177.48, 179.15, 156.97, 180.00, 152.24

Agnes -- 138.19, 149.38, 174.10, 157.23

Caroline -- 140.70, 152.72, 173.19, 176.18

Only one lady seems to be on a definite upward trend.

I agree with skateflower, It wasnt that bad. She always falls on at least one jump and its usually forgiven. Had she not fallen so hard on that triple loop, it would have likely scored over 100. It looked like she had much better speed and attack than at nationals. I loved the ending when the music fades away and the audience is left with just a beautiful spin that goes on forever. She just needs to work on rotating those double axels. If she is able to successfully execute this content at worlds, she will definitely medal.

PolymerBob said:

I don't have any real opinion on who should go to Worlds. The team is picked and that's that. But I did notice something interesting. Take a look at the scores of the 3 ladies in question this season.

Alissa -- 177.48, 179.15, 156.97, 180.00, 152.24

Agnes -- 138.19, 149.38, 174.10, 157.23

Caroline -- 140.70, 152.72, 173.19, 176.18

Only one lady seems to be on a definite upward trend.

Click to expand...

If you throw out National scores (can't compare them to international ones), Zawadzki is also trending upward. But the downward trend for Czisny is not at all encouraging...

Caroline is especially impressive in surpassing her Nationals score instead of having it as SB.

SkateFiguring said:

(Abbott) would have gained a few more points if he had rotated the quad before falling...

This will be a big problem and the most important deciding factor at Worlds too. He should not attempt a quad if he can't fully rotate it.

Click to expand...

And you don't see anything wrong with the scoring system? The most important deciding factor at the world figure skating championships is whether a skater can rotate his jumps before he falls on his butt?

Zawadzki as the 1st alternate is not very encouraging either
she is more inconsistent than Alissa and if she has a meltdown, Agnes' scores get into the 130-140+ while Alissa
in a bad day held at least by her spins and PCS record in the score 150+

Mathman said:

And you don't see anything wrong with the scoring system? The most important deciding factor at the world figure skating championships is whether a skater can rotate his jumps before he falls on his butt?

Click to expand...

The statement applies to either CoP or 6.0.

I see it as the most important factor for Abbott's decision to include or not include his "quad" at Worlds where the competition is fierce, the stakes are high, and the margin for error is small. If he can't rotate his quad, he doesn't have a quad, especially if he tends to fall on it. It is bad regardless of the scoring system. Do you think it's beneficial and advisable for him to attempt a quad highly likely to be downgraded and incurring a fall under 6.0? Maybe the judges wouldn't care about the under-rotation but they would definitely care about the fall. Takahashi has routinely included his unsuccessful quad but, unlike Abbott, he is able to continue his performance unaffected and in most competitions, he has the super PCS and sufficient TES to put him ahead. Even then the strategy does not always work out at the highest level competitions.

Abbott, too, has superb skating skills and high PCS as the cushion. If he is able to complete the rest of the jumps successfully regardless of the quad success, then it's worthwhile for him to include a quad, an actually rotated one, whether or not he may fall on it. In fact, he should include it for the chance to podium, especially if he does land it, like Kozuka did last year? Now the question is, can Abbott pull a Kozuka? He certainly has the programs and the skills, and he is able to land a real quad occasionally.

R.D. said:

If you throw out National scores (can't compare them to international ones), Zawadzki is also trending upward.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are right. I keep forgetting; some skaters get something called "National inflation".

( How nice that must be. )

SkateFiguring said:

If he is able to complete the rest of the jumps successfully regardless of the quad success, then it's worthwhile for him to include a quad, an actually rotated one, whether or not he may fall on it.

Click to expand...

That is the part that I just can't wrap my mind around. You get big points for an element whether or not you fall on it.. This just flies in the face on any notion of sport that I have ever heard of.

Scott Hamilton wrote his autobiography. It's title is, "Getting in the rotations before falling."

On no, wait. The title is, "Landing it!"

Pepe Nero said:

It shocks me that the moderators don't edit out vulgar, sexist claims like this [that Alyssa was on her period]. I have had far more innocuous things edited out by moderators here before.

I'm finding many people's responses on the question that started this thread bizarre. I agree that if Czisny is injured, she should withdraw. However, if Czisny were taken off the team (for any reason) by the USFSA, it would be Zawadski who would replace her. The USFSA cannot just pick someone they like who performed well in one recent competition (which seems to be the criterion among some posters here). I would just like to point out that Zawadski's season's best is about 157 (4CC), a mere 5 points higher than Czisny's season's worst (International Challenge). In fact, the IC event where Czisny "bombed" is the ONLY event all season where she earned a score lower than ANY score by Zawadski.

I don't know why anyone is suggesting Gold be sent instead of Czisny. Her junior programs are not long enough for a senior competition, and it's not as though she could just tack an extra 30 seconds of music on to her free skate.

The suggestion of Zhang as an alternate is equally puzzling to me. It's as if people have no sense of (recent) history. Zhang has been "bombing" in the same sense as Czisny (actually, Zhang at her worst is far worse) for the past 2 years! It's funny to me how some people on this forum will completely write a skater off after one bad competition, but if a skater competes well JUST ONCE, two years of terrible skates are utterly forgotten.

Click to expand...

Quite honestly, that remark didn't really bother me that much. I don't know the intention of the original poster, but it is actually possible that that could be a problem for an elite skater if they get attrocious cramps or become anemic during their period. Growing up I knew a gymnast who was a completely different athlete on her period to the point where her coaches wouldn't often let her compete during it- this after she broke her leg because she was too anemic to complete her bar routine at one competition.

We know Alyssa follows a vegan, or at least vegetarian, diet. It can be difficult to get enough iron on such a diet if the athlete doesn't monitor their iron intake. As such, it is actually possible that this is a problem Alyssa would have to learn to deal with.

Mathman said:

That is the part that I just can't wrap my mind around. You get big points for an element whether or not you fall on it.. This just flies in the face on any notion of sport that I have ever heard of.

Scott Hamilton wrote his autobiography. It's title is, "Getting in the rotations before falling."

On no, wait. The title is, "Landing it!"

Click to expand...

The goal is to land it. But if you can't land it 100% of the time, then you need to decide if you should include it. You risk losing points if you fall but falling after rotating it is not as bad as falling without rotating it. Thus the deciding factor. It's not so complicated. Nor does it advocate falling. It's about calculated risk, like most decisions in life. Those who never take risks never win big.

All jumps involve risk of falling, to various degrees. A skater includes the highest value jumps s/he has enough degree of confidence to land. Falling incurs high penalty so the calculated risk is that for the highest value jumps, if one can fully rotate them, it may be worth the risk. What is so evil about such weighing of decisions? The scoring system encourages risk taking for the quads but scoffs at falling at low level jumps. Understandable and for skaters to abide accordingly and carefully.

SkateFiguring said:

The statement applies to either CoP or 6.0.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. There was virtually no additional benefit for falling on a fully-rotated Quad in 6.0 vs falling on an underrotated one.

The scale of values are poorly skewed. You shouldn't get an extra 3 points for falling on a Quad that is considered to be rotated to at least the 1/4 turn mark, vs falling on a Quad that is slightly less rotated. As I've said before, it should be like:

4Lutz - 14.3 (-3.0, +1.0 for GOE)
4Flip - 13.3 (-2.8, +1.0 for GOE)
4Loop - 12.5 (-2.6, +1.0 for GOE)
4Sal - 10.5 (-2.2, +1.0 for GOE)
4Toe - 10.1 (-2.1, +1.0 for GOE)

3Axel - 8.2 (-1.7, +1.0 for GOE)
3Lutz - 5.5 (-1.2, +.7 for GOE)
3Flip - 5.0 (-1.1, +.7 for GOE)
3Loop - 4.6 (-1.0, +.7 for GOE)
3Sal - 3.6 (-.9, +.6 for GOE)
3Toe - 3.4 (-9, -.9, -.8, +.6 for GOE)

2Axel - 2.5 (-.7, -.7, -.6, +.5 for GOE)
2Lutz - 1.5 (-.4, +.4 for GOE)
2Flip - 1.3 (-.4, -.3, -.3 +.4 for GOE)
2Loop - 1.3 (-.4, -.3, -.3 +.4 for GOE)
2Sal - 1.0 (.-3, -.3, -.2, +.3 for GOE)
2Toe - 1.0 (-.3, -.3, -.2, +.3 for GOE)

1Axel - .8 (-.2, +.3 for GOE)
1Lutz - .4 (-.1, +.2 for GOE)
1Flip - .3 (-.1, +.2 for GOE)
1Loop - .3 (-.1, +.2 for GOE)
1Sal - .2 (-.1, -.1, -.0, +.1 for GOE)
1Toe - .2 (-.1, +.1, -.0, +.1 for GOE)

VALUES FOR UNDERROTATED JUMPS:

4Lutz - 10.7 (-2.3, +1 for GOE)
4Flip - 10.0 (-2.1, +1 for GOE)
4Loop - 9.4 (-2.0, +1 for GOE)
4Sal - 7.9 (-1.7, +.9 for GOE)
4Toe - 7.6 (-1.6, +.9 for GOE)

3Axel - 6.1 (-1.2, +.8 for GOE)
3Lutz - 4.0 (-1, +.6 for GOE)
3Flip - 3.6 (-.8, +.6 for GOE)
3Loop - 3.2 (-.7, +.6 for GOE)
3Sal - 2.5 (-.7, -.7, -.6, +.5 for GOE)
3Toe - 2.4 (-.7, -.6, -.6, +.5 for GOE)

2Axel - 1.7 (-.4, +.4 for GOE)
2Lutz - 1.0 (-3, -.3, -.2, +.3 for GOE)
2Flip - .8 (-.2, +.3 for GOE)
2Loop - .8 (-.2, +.3 for GOE)
2Sal - .6 (-.2, +.2 for GOE)
2Toe - .6 (-.2, +.2 for GOE)

1Axel - .4 (-.1, +.2 for GOE)
(all other underrotated single jumps are worth nothing)

Falling would only be a half point deduction because there isn't much difference between falling on a jump and executing it so badly that it deserves -3 GOE without a fall deduction (and the decision to give a fall deduction or not is a bit subjective to begin with).

Additionally, bonuses would be given to jump combinations based upon how difficult they are.

Mathman said:

That is the part that I just can't wrap my mind around. You get big points for an element whether or not you fall on it.. This just flies in the face on any notion of sport that I have ever heard of.

Scott Hamilton wrote his autobiography. It's title is, "Getting in the rotations before falling."

On no, wait. The title is, "Landing it!"

Click to expand...

I've always thought that jumps that end in a fall (which would be defined as BOTH hands and/or butt on the ice) shouldn't get credit at all. 0 points. Partial credit can be given for UR jumps that are landed, or for 2-footed jumps or jumps landed with a hand down.

Then you will see a lot of "skating through" the elements (or a lot of much simpler programs) because not falling but not even attempting the element is easier on the body than falling and getting no points. There's a risk-reward proposition that must be fullfilled - there has to be a benefit to at least trying the element otherwise you end up with a World and Olympic Champion without a Quad in Men.

^^^^ Or Men skating like Ladies, who are getting all the opposite complaints these days about lack of high level jumps but staying clean winning the top prizes. Damned if you do............