Was Suzuki twice a victim of underscoring and pageantry in PCS? | Page 8 | Golden Skate

Was Suzuki twice a victim of underscoring and pageantry in PCS?

Joined
Mar 11, 2011
IMHO there should not be any points given for transitions that make you miss the jump. First things first. ;)

1. A few turns leading directly into a 2Lo, not 3Lo.
2. No transitions on the entry to 2A+3T-- she landed it!

4. Long and simple entry into 2fLz, not 3Lz.
5. Just one turn into 1S, not 3S.

"7. difficult entrance with steps and very short set-up into 3F+2Lo+2Lo(tano arm), simple exit." -- Um, am I watching th wrong performance? I saw only a 2F, np combo, no Tano.

So my question is, what is the point of all these transitions into jumps if you don't follow through by doing the jump? Why would the CoP take it into its curious head to reward such a thing?

You're right. I think that bolded part is what dug this discussion and NHK ladies result into question marks. Transitions or movements to enhance your chance of better scoring is great, but what is the point if you just can't land the jumps? Even when those transitions were not really that difficult for any elite skaters?
 
Last edited:

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
IMHO there should not be any points given for transitions that make you miss the jump. First things first. ;)

...So my question is, what is the point of all these transitions into jumps if you don't follow through by doing the jump? Why would the CoP take it into its curious head to reward such a thing?

...I think it is a flaw in the CoP to award irrelevant ornamentation over solid technique.

You're right. I think that bolded part is what dug this discussion and NHK ladies result into question marks. Transitions or movements to enhance your chance of better scoring is great, but what is the point if you just can't land the jumps?

I guess it depends whether you think of a skating program as

1) a collection of jumps and spins, with everything in between just setup or ornamentation

or

2) a collection of skating skills, with jumps and spins as ornaments


Some might say that if all you're doing is stroking around setting up jumps, you're not skating a program, so what's the point?
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
I guess it depends whether you think of a skating program as

1) a collection of jumps and spins, with everything in between just setup or ornamentation

or

2) a collection of skating skills, with jumps and spins as ornaments


Some might say that if all you're doing is stroking around setting up jumps, you're not skating a program, so what's the point?

Non jumps elements are also important, that's given, of course, but it is the jumps that have the highest points and some would argue that jumps are the most important "element" in skating. I love all rounded, beautiful skating with great SS, but if you can't land jumps, IMO, there's little chance of you making it further in your career, a la Thomas Verner. (My heart literally breaks whenever he just can't bring it, which has been his consistent showing lately:cry:)
 

christinaskater

Medalist
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
In the end, Asada won. She had a fantastic SP as well which helped her a lot to win. Judges definitely love Mao for her reputation and superstar status! Basically, Mao winning in Japan is the dream finish for the fans, JSF and ISU. Akiko deserved to win!!!! Judges and everyone else thought she had it already, so they basically wanted Mao to place 3rd to ensure a GPF spot. I think a lot of the judges were increasing the PCS (without talking to JSF or anything) just to ensure Mao had a spot and they all scored her really, really well.
 

christinaskater

Medalist
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOuaUMgFOcg


For me, this is one of the most beautiful skates of all time! Simply exquisite! She may not have overacting facial expressions but her body oozes with soul and musicality. Her body dances for her. Nearly all movements (except the camel) are polished and looks very naturally graceful.

She has beautiful transitions before doing a text book jump :) I love how her lutz keeps improving :)

So happy she got a really great score :) I would love to see her do a clean short and LP in one competition. If she does that consistently she will definitely be rewarded big time.

I think the music in the end does not give her the excitement she deserves. She skated her gut out especially during the final part of the program. Nonetheless, i love this program and I am so happy that she skated a really clean and nearly flawless free skate (her first in 2-3 years)!!!! Go AKIKO SAN!

I think her LP has fusions of Shizuka, Daisuke and Carolina all in one. It's a tough , tough program but she is a mighty skater. I am just excited to see how far this program can go!
 

christinaskater

Medalist
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Like they said, skating a clean and fantastic program- one of, if not, her greatest skate of all time gives her the most fulfilling feeling.
 

Rachmaninoff

Final Flight
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Um, no. Perhaps the original thread title is as such, but I have never believed in the conspiracy theories and neither do a lot of people.

As I said in the other threads, I don't deny that Mao has more transitions or better skating skills and fine with her winning in those areas, but I do not see, per the bulllet points and watching the performances a number of times, how Mao can beat Akiko in the CH/PE/IN. Perhaps I need to go and do the same type of post you did.

But to be fair, Tony Wheeler and Jackie Wong did that for me.

Neither of them seem to be one to be outraged for no reason and both take the time to consider each of the PCS criteria. You might not agree with every point, but again this emphasizes that not everyone who disagrees with the result is some sort of conspiracy theorist.

Right on. In fairness, there are people here saying it was fixed, or that Mao was favoured because she is more accomplished/more popular/younger/prettier, but to talk as if these are the only people who have a problem with the outcome is quite a straw man indeed.

You could indeed make a strong argument for why Mao's program deserved better marks for transitions and skating skills. That doesn't explain the rest of the PCS marks. It also doesn't explain the curious phenomenon in general of how the PCS marks stay strangely close together. No doubt some skaters are great performers but have mediocre SS and TR, and vice-versa. Why don't we see this reflected in the marks very much? This has bothered me the entire time CoP has been in place, and no, not just when my favourites don't win.

Also, as I said in the NHK ladies' free thread:

To me, the heart of what's measured in the second mark should be the performance, the connection to the music, the experience the skater creates for the audience. Skating skills, choreography and transitions are more of an important means to that end, rather than something that should be rewarded on their own. I realize the scoring system is set up that way. Well, that's why I'm not too keen on it. I'm actually fine with the technical side of things in this new system, and if there are problems they can be tweaked (and have been). But the second mark...I don't really know what would work better; I just know that this isn't working if it isn't rewarding performances like Akiko's here.

It's not so much that the scoring is "unfair" if it doesn't work the way I'd like. After all, it's set up beforehand, and the skaters and their team are responsible for designing programs to maximize their scores given the way the system is set up. But I do fear it's taking the sport in a direction that makes it less appealing to me and many others. I don't like that complex transitions, detailed choreography, etc. gets rewarded in the second mark regardless of whether it improves the connection to the music, the spectator experience, the overall performance quality. I don't like that one performance can captivate an audience far more than another's, and get a lower second mark. I think something is lost in that case.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I guess it depends whether you think of a skating program as

1) a collection of jumps and spins, with everything in between just setup or ornamentation

or

2) a collection of skating skills, with jumps and spins as ornaments


Some might say that if all you're doing is stroking around setting up jumps, you're not skating a program, so what's the point?

I guess I would look at it this way. The jumps ornament the program. The jump entries ornament the jumps.

If a skater glides along and does a couple of Mohawks and 3 turns, that by itself is not by itself especially praiseworthy at the elite senior level. But if she does some elementary steps and turns as the entry to a triple jump, then good for her. However, a fancy entry into a popped jump -- to me, that defeats the purpose of the whole element, in addition to detracting from the choreography, interpretation, etc.

This is made explicit in the short program. You must do a triple jump with steps, turns, and/or skating movements immediately preceding. If you do the preceding steps but pop the jump -- sorry, a mandatory -3 GOE. This happened to Suzuki in the short program and she lost almost all credit for the element (0.3 points instead of 6.0), and was mired in 5th place.

In the LP, Mao did the same thing -- four times. But the judges liked her "transitions," even though they were transitions to nowhere.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Speaking only for myself, in general...

I'm not fond of programs that consist of crossovers, choctaw-choctaw, lutz; crossovers, mohawks, three turn, flip; crossovers, traveling threes, loop; etc., i.e., sticking a couple of extra turns before a jump just to increase the chances of earning higher GOE on that jump and/or of earning higher transitions scores, with no other choreographic purpose behind the extra turns. Or even crossovers, spiral or spread eagle, crossover, back outside edge, axel.

I do think that in many cases the extra turns add difficulty, so all else being equal in the quality and number of rotations of the jump itself, I do think that a more difficult entrance should be able to nudge a jump over the borderline between a lower and a higher GOE (most often likely 0 to +1), but it shouldn't guarantee a higher GOE, and obviously if there are problems with the rotation or landing or air position, etc., of the jump then the usual minuses should apply. And I think that consistent telegraphing of jumps should be penalized, though I don't mind it for the most difficult jump in the skater's repertoire.

However, what I love is to watch programs that are choreographed to use edges, steps, turns, and highlight moves in a coherent whole, with the jumps woven in as highlights within the fabric of the program rather than set off as isolated elements.

If the former skater were to skate a runthrough of the program with just single jumps, there would be nothing to watch but a bunch of empty stroking and single jumps. If the latter did the same, we'd have an interesting program to watch, despite the unimpressive jumps.

So I do think the rules etc. should encourage skaters to skate programs and not just land jumps. What we really want is for them to do both together.

From a strategic standpoint on the skater's end, it may make more sense to skate boring empty programs to allow them to land the jumps more consistently. However, a skater who aspires to score as high as possible may challenge him/herself with a more complex program and need to work up to skating it clean(ish) by the end of the season by experiencing some rough performances earlier in the season. And a skater who is just inconsistent in general and likely to miss some jumps regardless of the entrances may do better by focusing on earning points in PCS to make up for the inevitable jump errors -- better a well-choreographed program with errors than a poorly choreographed program with the same errors.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
gkelly said:
However, what I love is to watch programs that are choreographed to use edges, steps, turns, and highlight moves in a coherent whole, with the jumps woven in as highlights within the fabric of the program rather than set off as isolated elements.

To me, this describes Suzuki's performance.

Re-watching, only the last triple Lo+2T had perhaps too long and straight a straight set-up. The highlight elements perfectly complemented the choreography. A bird -- specifically, a sandpiper (a kulik in Russian :) ) -- dancing along the sea shore, then popping up in the air now and then, as sandpipers do. :laugh:

The Eurosport guys commented on the pure technique of her jump entries in a favorable way, and I agree.

For the rest of the performance, I cannot name each of the steps and turns she did, but her feet were always moving. I thought she did fine overall in the transitions department.

This is not to deny that Mao Asada is among the all-time greats at putting her mastery of skating skills to the service of the music and choreography. But this performance -- not her best.
 

christinaskater

Medalist
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
I am happy for Akiko and Ashley! If this trend continues they will both possibly score 130's in their FS or even higher.

Ashley has the command of a champion which is her edge. You can just see that confidence pour out of her. She is so well-trained (mentally and physically).

Akiko is starting to get consistent. If she puts on 2 clean programs she will absolutely kill it as well.
 
Last edited:

Bartek

On the Ice
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
IMHO there should not be any points given for transitions that make you miss the jump. First things first. ;)

1. A few turns leading directly into a 2Lo, not 3Lo.
2. No transitions on the entry to 2A+3T-- she landed it!

4. Long and simple entry into 2fLz, not 3Lz.
5. Just one turn into 1S, not 3S.

"7. difficult entrance with steps and very short set-up into 3F+2Lo+2Lo(tano arm), simple exit." -- Um, am I watching th wrong performance? I saw only a 2F, np combo, no Tano.

So my question is, what is the point of all these transitions into jumps if you don't follow through by doing the jump? Why would the CoP take it into its curious head to reward such a thing?



That you for that compilation. I intended to comment at the time, but the thread moved on before I got to it.

I actually like Suzuki's classic textbook jump entries. I do not think it adds anything of value to the program to twitch back and forth a few times before jumping -- especially if the twitching makes you miss the jump.

I think it is a flaw in the CoP to award irrelevant ornamentation over solid technique.

Wasn't it clear that I was talking about Asada's planned FS for this year, not the particular performance of it at NHK? I was comparing both program's structure, not the actual performance.

The fact is that Mao's program is a lot more difficult. I do think it adds to the program to twitch back and forth a few times before jumping simply because it makes your jumps more difficult to land. Just go on the ice rink and see. Try to land a flip like Akiko with long preparation and than like Mao with those mohawks.

There should be points given for transitions even if they make you miss the jumps. Your transitions score should be higher if you have them in your program regardless of your success with the jumps.
 

Bartek

On the Ice
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
I think you should read shine's post above as his/her take on Mao's transitions is more correct (mostly mohawks and three turns that any low level skater can do...)

Not really. Mao does spirals, spread eagles, ina bauers apart from those mohawks and three-turns. And again, just go to the ice rink and try to land a flip like Akiko and like Mao. You'll see the outcome. Even though Mao does "only" mohawks and three-turns beofre her flip it's still more difficult than Akiko's long straight entrences.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Wasn't it clear that I was talking about Asada's planned FS for this year, not the particular performance of it at NHK? I was comparing both program's structure, not the actual performance.

Gosh, I don't agree with this point of view at all. What you plan to do doesn't mean a thing. It's what you do. You can't give someone a high score just because she planned to do something.

I do think it adds to the program to twitch back and forth a few times before jumping simply because it makes your jumps more difficult to land. Just go on the ice rink and see.

I did! I twitched like crazy. Missed all my jumps. Where's my gold medal? ;)

There should be points given for transitions even if they make you miss the jumps.

I guess we will have to disagree about this. If a baseball player struck out while standing on his head, he still struck out. :yes:
 

ImaginaryPogue

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
For someone determined to celebrate figure skating's differences from other sports, you sure use a lot of sports analogies that don't make sense to me.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Gosh, I don't agree with this point of view at all. What you plan to do doesn't mean a thing. It's what you do. You can't give someone a high score just because she planned to do something.

Very true.

But she did the steps leading into the jump. Therefore, she should get more credit for those steps than if she had just skating forward in a straight line. The whole program is being judged, not just the jumps.

I did! I twitched like crazy. Missed all my jumps. Where's my gold medal? ;)

See, if you consider steps and turns and everything else between the jumps to be mere "twitching" you're missing the point of what a skating program is about. Why bother to skate a program at all if all that matters is landing jumps? Why not just have an event where skaters have 4 minutes to complete the hardest combination of 7 jumps and 3 spins with no points for anything but those jumps and spins?

If the point is the skating, then what happens with the blade on the ice, on edges, should be at least as what happens while both blades are in the air.
 

shine

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Not really. Mao does spirals, spread eagles, ina bauers apart from those mohawks and three-turns. And again, just go to the ice rink and try to land a flip like Akiko and like Mao. You'll see the outcome. Even though Mao does "only" mohawks and three-turns beofre her flip it's still more difficult than Akiko's long straight entrences.
A couple of spirals and spread eagles don't automatically make a program full of transitions. Suzuki also had a great spiral on a very deep outside edge by the way. You are trying to make it sound like Asada's program was so much more difficult than Suzuki's when it's simply not. Do you know that a 3 turn into a flip is a very standard flip entry that they teach you at the can-skate level? Can you please stop preaching to everybody that Asada's FS is oh so much more difficult because 2 of her jumps had the mohwak entry? Sure, having a mohawk is more difficult than having no mohwak in the absolutely sense, and it makes a difference when you are just learning to skate. But for THEIR level, it's such a relatively rudimentary step that wouldn't make the judges go "Wow, that's such an amazing transition, I better give her an 8.5 for TR and +2 GOE for that jump!"
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
For someone determined to celebrate figure skating's differences from other sports, you sure use a lot of sports analogies that don't make sense to me.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson.

I construct logical arguments for a living. Figure skating is my refuge from consistency and logic. :yes:

Anyway... :) ... when I say figure skating is different from other sports I mean that besides accomplishing feats of derring-do as in all sports, in figure skating you are supposed to look pretty while you are doing it. (Here "looking pretty" means presenting well-constructed choreography, conveying the emotional content of the music, etc., etc.)

Figure skating is like other sports in that you get points for stuff like scoring goals. If you have a difficult approach to your shot but miss the goal -- nope.

In figure skating as in all endeavors, making something difficult for no other purpose than to make it difficult is not praiseworthy. (All IMHO of course.)
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
But she did the steps leading into the jump. Therefore, she should get more credit for those steps than if she had just skating forward in a straight line. The whole program is being judged, not just the jumps.

She should get credit for the steps, but she should not get double credit, once in the GOE for the element and again in the transitions component, for the same steps. That's where I think the scoring system is wrong -- they give a reward twice for the same thing. It seems like one or the other but not both would be more fair.

At the least, if you are going to reward difficult jump entries in the transitions component score anyway, and if you miss the jump, then I do not see the merit in giving a double reward for making the entry to an element so hard that you can't do it at all.

See, if you consider steps and turns and everything else between the jumps to be mere "twitching" you're missing the point of what a skating program is about.

Skating between the jumps, yes, yes!

My complaint is that a lot of what counts as incorporating steps and turns as part of the jump entry is often in fact little more than a couple of twitches. Maybe I don't have a good enough eye. To me this seems especially true in the required solo triple in the short program. I also have a problem with the "immediately" part. A lot of these jumps have turns and steps -- and then a long straight entry edge. I think this should be counted as transitions in program components, but not also as GOE bullets if they are too far in advance of the actual takeoff.
 
Top