Osmond vs. Kim in PCS, a huge gap? | Page 4 | Golden Skate

Osmond vs. Kim in PCS, a huge gap?

Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Heh. Yu-Na has far more difficult transitions attached to her jumps than that--including a creative exit for her 3S, a spread eagle done directly after the 3F (yes...done on an inside edge). I'd call what she does after her 3Lz a creative exit. Her 2A is done shortly after the footwork sequence and is followed by a toepick hop--another creative exit. However, she does not have any transitions preceding her 3F (she lifts her skate up at one moment, but no, I would not call that a step) or her solo 3Lz, or her opening 3Lz/3T. These are just the transitions that are attached to jumps, not even the standalone transitions, which do count towards the overall TR score.

Creative exits, yay! Especially a long flowing exit edge. Monkey business before a jump, especially when it makes you fall down -- no, that is not so praiseworthy, to me.

It's just me. I like pure, textbook jumps. After the jump and in between jumps, great, bring on the transitions. :yes:
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
If Yuna's TR score was accurate, it would still be a 147 program; still the best program under COP by a mile. Don't forget COP rewards SS like fast skating and use of edges as much as transitions, so just because a skater twizzles about the ice doesn't mean their program is COP-friendly if it's lacking in other areas.

I am not saying her transitions score was inaccurate. I just liked her jump entries as they were.

IMHO one reason that all of Yu-na's jumps were excellent and got positive GOE was because she didn't confuse the issue by doing a lot of hops, skips, and twiddles going in. This gave her frim control of the entry edge.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Mathman, I think you are reading tea leaf. You are seeing connections and causations where none exists.

To me, it is just common sense. Your jump is more likely to be successful if you prepare properly than if you are wiggling about.

Skaters like Kwan, Plushenko, and Kim prepared their jumps properly. They rarely fell, double-footed, under-rotated, saved a landing by stepping out or hand down, etc.

But I agree that there is a question of putting the horse before the cart. One way of defing good skating is this. "Good skating" is what good skaters do. If you want to know what consititues good skating, watch Kwan, Plushenko, and Kim.

The other way is to appoint a committee to come up with a list. "Good skating" means choose one bullet point from coulmn three and two bullet points from column four.
 

Icey

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Is it because she competed only once under CoP, at the very end of her career when she was hampered by chronic hip injury? ;)

I always felt she resisted COP in much the same way Weir did. Even at her test skate the judges were telling her things to do to COP her spins.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Some thoughts on my understandings of the Transitions rules:

I agree with this, too. The CoP may like busy for the sake of busy, but I don't.

I don't think it likes busy for the sake of busy.

The criteria for the Transitions component are variety, difficulty, quality, and intricacy. Nowhere is "quantity" listed as a criterion.

It is easier to get variety if you throw in a lot of different moves, but often quality is better demonstrated with a single move that covers more ice, holding an edge or a position for more time.

If you hold the quality constant, then more transitional moves is probably worth more than fewer. But any given skater might lose quality in the attempt to do too much too quickly. And the skaters with higher skill can So the best skaters will often incorporate their transitional moves judiciously in ways that highlight the quality of each rather than the sheer quantity.

If Yuna's TR score was accurate, it would still be a 147 program; still the best program under COP by a mile. Don't forget COP rewards SS like fast skating and use of edges as much as transitions, so just because a skater twizzles about the ice doesn't mean their program is COP-friendly if it's lacking in other areas.

Very good point.

Which makes me wonder if the Transitions score ever takes into account penalties for excessive amounts of transitions.

There's no explicit penalty for too much (or not enough) transitional moves. If the effect of too many meaningless steps is to make the choreography appear cluttered and less effective, less connected to the music, then the large number of steps would probably have more of a negative effect on the Choreography score than on the Transitions score. It might have a negative effect on Transitions if the quality suffered as a result.

Creative exits, yay! Especially a long flowing exit edge. Monkey business before a jump, especially when it makes you fall down -- no, that is not so praiseworthy, to me.

A long flowing exit edge in a standard landing position is not exactly creative, but it would be high quality and boost the GOE for that jump, and perhaps the Skating Skills component and the "clarity of movement" criterion under Performance/Execution. Variations of the arm, free leg, body position while holding that long flowing edge could be considered creative, as could edge changes, turns, etc., continuing that flow directly from the landing edge without any additional pushes.

Creative exit and long flowing edge are both considered under the same positive GOE bullet point. Either could occur on its own without the other. I'd hope that if both occur together that bullet point could be counted twice or counted more strongly to guarantee an additional + to the GOE.

But "creativity" is part of Choreography anyway, not Transitions.

Still, I wouldn't consider an excellent standard landing position on an excellent back outside edge to be anything more than an excellent standard landing -- I'd think the place to reward it is elsewhere than the Transitions score.

Obviously, landing a jump -- especially landing it well -- is worth more than falling on the jump, as would be reflected both in the GOE and in the fall deduction. So it's probably an unwise choice to put difficult moves before a jump if they decrease the likelihood of landing it successfully.

But if we're comparing two successful jumps with equal-quality landings, I would expect the one with a more difficult or less-telegraphed entry to be worth more, all else being equal, both in the +GOE and in the Transitions score.

Same for comparing two unsuccessful jumps with the same errors. Both might end up getting -3 GOE and both might get fall deductions, but the one with the more difficult or less telegraphed entry would have a more positive effect on the Transitions score.

You are correct in your identification of Choctaw. However, at this level if only a single type of turn is performed and nothing else accompanies it, then it is not deemed as sufficient to meet the requirement of connecting steps - otherwise, it simply becomes too easy. Put it this way, a skater can accidentally perform a Choctaw by simply entering a spin from back inside edge into forward outside edge - should that count as transition as well into the said spin and therefore merit extra bullet points?

It's just a standard entry into a spin and shouldn't add anything, IMO. But I wouldn't consider it accidental -- just not added difficulty. If the back inside edge is held for a really long time, telegraphing the choctaw (step forward) onto the outside edge to begin the spin, then it would be a negative in my view.

The rules are in fact quite stringent with regard to what satisfies as connecting steps and or comparable free skating moves in that even a single spread eagle or spiral is considered insufficient and therefore, cannot be considered as a difficult entry for the purpose of GOE (albeit, in practice during FS, that depends on how lenient the individual judge is).

Where do the GOE rules say that? The "Break between required steps/movements & jump/only one step/movement preceding jump" GOE reduction of -1 to -2 applies to the short program jump out of steps only. The rules for positive GOEs on jump elements just give "unexpected / creative / difficult entry" as a positive bullet point, with no mention of the number of skating moves involved in said unexpected/creative/difficult entry.

As I posted in the Quantity vs. Quality thread, I think that just holding a long forward outside edge for half the ice surface and then jumping up directly into a double axel would qualify as unexpected, creative, and difficult and that doesn't even involve any "recognizable skating movements" except high quality to an edge that even beginners should be able to hold for a couple of feet.

I'm not sure how whether that kind of axel entry would add to the Transitions component, but because the jump is unexpected I don't think it would count as telegraphing and subtract from the intricacy. I would certainly expect it to be rewarded in the GOE (assuming the jump is successful, per Mathman).

If a skater who went from a jump straight into a step sequence, then there is no linking footwork or movement to speak of and therefore, one cannot evaluate something that was not performed.

I think it counts toward intricacy. There isn't any explication of the "intricacy" criterion in the written IJS documentation, and it's been a while since I watched the component videos so I don't remember if there was more detailed discussion there. My understanding of that criterion would include seamlessly moving (transitioning) from one element to another without intervening neutral strokes.

E.g., when I take notes about a program, if a skater goes directly from one element to another with no extra strokes in between I would write

StSq
(
2A



or

CCSp
(
3S


etc. and would expect the transition from one element to another to be rewarded for intricacy even though there's no extra "in-between" move that adds content.
 
Last edited:

ImaginaryPogue

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
I was sort of thinking this in particular with Kaetlyn's Carmen program. I remember when Mirai got lots of criticism when she did her FS to Carmen in 2010 because she was too juniorish or not mature enough for Carmen. Yet when Kaetlyn does a similar program with that same perk, people argue that she's a great performer. For the record, I think there's room for perky and bullish Carmens too.

Are people arguing she's a great performer because of her LP? Her short program is getting a lot more credit in that department and her long is universally thought to be lesser. I'd also arguing that the great performer aspect comes from comparing her to the field in Canada, where great performers weren't all that common. Sorta like how Flatt was consistent compared to Czisny/Nagasu, but if you compared her to Kwan/Hughes/etc, she doesn't quite measure up.
 

Mrs. P

Uno, Dos, twizzle!
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Are people arguing she's a great performer because of her LP? Her short program is getting a lot more credit in that department and her long is universally thought to be lesser. I'd also arguing that the great performer aspect comes from comparing her to the field in Canada, where great performers weren't all that common. Sorta like how Flatt was consistent compared to Czisny/Nagasu, but if you compared her to Kwan/Hughes/etc, she doesn't quite measure up.

I guess what I mean is that I feel that Kaetlyn's Carmen FS isn't getting the same criticism as Mirai's Carmen from 2010 and rather there has been more focus on the fact she's a great performer (in general) and that she has lots of transitions.

And I agree she stands out given the weak Canadian field history (though it seems to be turning a corner with the new crop of juniors).

However, does that mean she'll win Worlds or medal and beat a number of front runners including the reigning gold and silver medalists? I don't know. But the way some people are talking round here, you would think that was a forgone conclusion.
 

jaylee

Medalist
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
I think it counts toward intricacy. There isn't any explication of the "intricacy" criterion in the written IJS documentation, and it's been a while since I watched the component videos so I don't remember if there was more detailed discussion there. My understanding of that criterion would include seamlessly moving (transitioning) from one element to another without intervening neutral strokes.

The ISU component video defines intricacy as this: "When the technical elements become part of the whole and appear woven into the transitions, which follow each other seamlessly, then transitions become intricate." This is said in the video that I linked before: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dnXGtSK9hCw#t=14s

During the narration, the clip shows the last 30 seconds of Yu-Na's Miss Saigon FS from the 2007 GPF, from the Ina Bauer to the double axel to the final combination spin in its entirety. There is no in-between the double axel and the final combination spin. If placing two technical elements--the jump and the spin--closely like that matters not at all in the discussion of transitions and intricacy, then I would expect them to have only shown the Ina Bauer to the double axel.
 

ImaginaryPogue

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
I guess what I mean is that I feel that Kaetlyn's Carmen FS isn't getting the same criticism as Mirai's Carmen from 2010 and rather there has been more focus on the fact she's a great performer (in general) and that she has lots of transitions.

And I agree she stands out given the weak Canadian field history (though it seems to be turning a corner with the new crop of juniors).

However, does that mean she'll win Worlds or medal and beat a number of front runners including the reigning gold and silver medalists? I don't know. But the way some people are talking round here, you would think that was a forgone conclusion.

a) The transitions thing stands out a lot, but I'd argue that she really is world class. If transitions were the only thing scored (and scored correctly), she would be a contender for gold. Just like how Chan's skating skills tended to dominant discussion, or Takahashi's performance quality. I believe the focus on performing comes from the fact that she is considered a great performer, relative to the history. Mirai's Carmen doesn't stand out as a notable American Lady LP. I'd argue that Osmond's Carmen does stand out as a notable Canadian Lady LP.

b) Ignoring the overhype, basically, Osmond medals if she's exceptionally clean and everyone else is exceptionally.... NOT. But only if the competition makes the specific type of point-losing errors (popping jumps, combination errors, downgrades) that make up for the PCS gap she'll have to overcome.

c) But gold medalists have poor competitions sometimes - Asada's a two time World champion, and she hasn't made the top five since she last won Worlds (and Osmond's score at Nebelhorn beats Asada score at the 2012 Worlds). The reigning silver medalist is Alena Leonova. Carolina Kostner won silver in 2008 (who was beaten by senior debutante.... Alena Leonova). But it would take four of six skaters (Kim, Kostner, Asada, Suzuki, Wagner, and Korpi) having poor skates for her to make the podium. Anyone rooting for an event like that must hate figure skating, frankly. I'll be honest, if it's an awesome competition and she skates well but doesn't make the top ten (ie, no two spots), I think I'd be okay with it (provided that China and France do have two spots - I really want to see Zijun Li/Kexin Xhang and Yretha Silethe/Mae Berenice Maete at Sochi) - it's not as if I really want to see Daleman/Chartrand etc at the Olympics, you know?

c) That said, if she does somehow earn the silver medal (or yegads, Gold) and gets Canada three spots, I will laugh so hard.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I always felt she resisted COP in much the same way Weir did. Even at her test skate the judges were telling her things to do to COP her spins.

Spins requiring flexibility and changes of positions hurt Michelle's back and she had to stop working on them. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. ;)
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Yes, of all the great skaters she was the least flexible to begin with. She still tops my list, but even I will have to concede that her Ina Bauer, even at age fifteen, was almost vertical. Not to worry, though. She had other magical powers. If I need to see a magnificent Ina Bauer, I watch Shizuka, and for hypnotically gorgeous spins, I have Lucinda Ruh and Alissa Czisny. For sheer splendor and magic, it's Michelle all the way, bendy back or not.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Creative exit and long flowing edge are both considered under the same positive GOE bullet point. Either could occur on its own without the other. I'd hope that if both occur together that bullet point could be counted twice or counted more strongly to guarantee an additional + to the GOE.

That is SO COOL Why don't skaters do that any more? Is it that they can't, or is it because they have other fish to fry, CoP-wise?

As I posted in the Quantity vs. Quality thread, I think that just holding a long forward outside edge for half the ice surface and then jumping up directly into a double axel would qualify as unexpected, creative, and difficult and that doesn't even involve any "recognizable skating movements" except high quality to an edge that even beginners should be able to hold for a couple of feet.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :yes:

For sheer splendor and magic, it's Michelle all the way, bendy back or not.

OK, I can't help myself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxjA5J76QBk

Edited to add...and to tie this post together, at the three minute mark she does one of those extended flowing edge thingies like Elvis. :)
 
Last edited:

Krislite

Medalist
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Your understanding of how things work at ISU events and championships is not correct. Marks for skaters are anything but consistent, especially when comparing scores given to X skater at the very beginning of the season vs. the end of the season (aka. World Championship). Even in Ice Dance, the discipline where marks tend to be the most consistent of all disciplines, significant movement can occur within a span of months. In Singles, that can change even quicker and the marks or ranking drastically change as well. For example, in the 1996-97 season, Michelle Kwan was the most dominant female skater as the reigning World Champion. That remained true through the Champion Series, GP Series' predecessor. Tara Lipinski was only 15th at Worlds in the previous year and during CS Series, finished as low as 3rd at Trophée Lalique (now Trophée Eric Bompard) and 2nd at Skate Canada. Suffice to say, the early season Presentation marks that Lipinski got were nothing to write home about. Michelle continued to dominate - until all of sudden, Michelle fell apart at the FS of U.S. Nationals and surprisingly lost to Lipinski. Tara went on to win the World Championship that year, becoming the youngest female ever to win such honor. It's interesting to note that by the time of Lausanne Worlds, Lipinski's Presentation marks have risen to a point that even though Michelle Kwan did not fall apart in her FS and actually won that portion of the competition, Tara's marks have shot upward so much in both SP and LP that Michelle simply couldn't catch up even after winning the FS.

History aside, when you think about it, skaters do improve and/or adjust their programs and become more comfortable as they gain mileage - why should the marks be fairly consistent between beginning and the end of the season? That makes no sense. Plus, you were taking marks from the Nebelhorn Trophy - an event in which she was virtually an unknown and compare it to Kim's marks at an a minor event where she was the only skater of note in which she made a sensational appearance after almost 2 years with her celebrity status - that kind of comparison is flawed on so many levels. Typically, skaters with celebrity status who make a comeback tend to skip most international events until their goal, let that be the Olympics or Worlds. Why? They know they are at an disadvantage vs. those skaters who are constantly competing. So by making their debut at the desired event, they were hoping that judges wouldn't have enough time to get used to their routines and overlook any flaws they may have. Although this was not what Kim was doing, her marks at her 1st event after an absence of almost 2 years where none of the other skaters present could possibly challenge her even if she fell 4 times and start making back flips will benefit significantly from the celebrity status that she has. It is not to say the judges would intentionally overmark her - simply that judges are human and they too would be excited and feel honored to be able to attend an event where Kim chose to debut after almost 2 years away.

Like I explained above, that is simply not true. There are many factors that could potentially explain lower marks at the beginning of the season, especially for a rookie who is in her 1st season as a senior. More specifically, if that rookie skater turned some heads during the season, e.g. beating some big shots en route to winning his/her Nationals and other International events of note, the marks will be anything but consistent between the early season and the end of season. A lot of it just human nature and of course, the playing field will be a little more leveled in terms of reputation influence. Say Gracie Gold wins the U.S. Championship this weekend, expect her PCS marks to get boost as well at her next International event, let that be the 4CC or Worlds even though she only finished 8th at Skate Canada. If you were to use her Skate Canada PCS to try to box her in, you'd make a serious error.

I still don't see how these suggest in any way that Kaetlyn could realistically close the PCS gap with Yuna. Last year Kostner had a fantastic season and at Worlds she averaged in the low 8's for PCS--the highest all year. The previous season Miki Ando likewise had a fantastic season and built up momentum, and her PCS peaked at around 8 at Worlds. These were veterans who had built up a reputation over many years--Miki was herself a previous World Champion.

If these veteran heavy weights could not touch Yuna's PCS ceiling of 9 in their very best season, how can an utter neophyte--even of Kaetlyn's caliber--get that high? And your example of Tara Lipinski does not quite work. Yuna to Kaetlyn is not Michelle to Tara. Kaetlyn's jumps and combinations are hardly superior to Yuna. She Flutzes, does no combo harder than a 3T/3T and likewise cannot do the loop. Tara was a jumping bean who truly out-jumped Michelle. The same cannot be said of Kaetlyn. The most you can argue is that her choreography and transitions are superior, but these alone cannot close the PCS gap especially when reputation is taken into account.

The only way Kaetlyn could close the gap is if Yuna's PCS took a precipitous drop and Kaetlyn's PCS shot up by an average of 1 per component. Comparing Yuna's clean Les Miserables free program to her previous free skates do not suggest any considerable regression in any of the program components, certainly not in transitions or skating skills or performance. Choreography and interpreation are arguable, but I doubt enough for judges to mark her way down compared to what they used to give her. Yuna would have to make several major mistakes for her PCS to drop well below her typical range (mid to upper 8).

Let me ask you this question, at the elite senior level, what do you think are the judges' expectation re: connecting steps and moves in the field? Was she skating at a junior event or was that a senior event? Sure, there was "something" but that "something" is so beneath the expectation at this level that it is simply not sufficient. A quasi-spiral is not a spiral and therefore, is not a Move in the Field. I am sure you have listened to TV coverage where commentators would be identifying the different steps and moves going to some elements - well, that's exactly what judges do too in competition - they do so mentally. Here you have a reigning Olympic Champion who showed up and 8 of her 10 jump and spin elements were not preceded by any identifiable move in the field or connecting steps - what am I supposed to say? That it's great because it's Yu Na skating? :confused: Yet, if an X skater whom you never heard of, showed up and do the same thing, are we supposed to give her an 8.0 as well for TR? Now, I read jaylee's reply, I will get to that shortly but I want to finish here by asking you a question : Do you feel Yu Na's overall transitions, linking footwork & movements in her Nationals LP are on par with what she is capable of, say during the 2010 Olympic season?

Since when were components measured against each individual skater's potential? Isn't it supposed to be a kind of distribution, where 5 is "average" for a senior lady? That is at least what the ISU guides suggest. If so, then the right comparison is not what Yuna herself is potentially capable of, but what senior ladies these days are actually doing with respect to transitions. Considering the dearth of complex, intricate or difficult transitions even among the top ladies, giving Yuna 6.5 or less for transitions in her free program is hardly just. How many of them even attempt both the Lutz and the Flip and do any kind of preceding moves to these jumps?
 

Icey

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Spins requiring flexibility and changes of positions hurt Michelle's back and she had to stop working on them. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. ;)

But she did what the judges suggested at the test skate, so seemingly she was able to cop her spins. Like this she said and they nodded in agreement is a paraphrase of what the article said.
 

jaylee

Medalist
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Sorry to bore everyone. Very long post follows in order to fully address all the points and try to close as many loopholes as possible.

I take that you deem this satisfactory because she wasn't just stroking into her 3F. Funny that you are using a clip from Michelle Kwan from the pre-CoP era. Have you considered why Michelle Kwan never achieved much success under CoP as she once did under 6.0 system?

I provided a clip of Michelle Kwan because I happened to have watched that skate that day so it was an example that I had on hand. I was actually using it to prove that that Yu-Na's element is one used as a transition by other skaters in the past--and hey, the majority of the transitions that skaters are doing now were done in the pre-CoP era! They just weren't being done with the same kind of jumps. Your point is entirely irrelevant, so why did you make it--other than try to make my comment look "funny"?

Now I had to go chase down a clip of another skater during the current season doing a similar move--which to be clear is not a back spiral. I am happy to admit that I was wrong about the name of the element, but not that Yu-Na has such an element in her program and that it counts as a transition.

Ashley Wagner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5enxqwYi7nY#t=75s

Let's just say her competition is doing a lot more than that and you wonder why many members here in this thread alone have already started marking Osmond's TR above that of Kim? That's shocking - a young rookie getting a TR component higher than the Yu Na Kim, the reigning Olympic Champion!? Take it however you want, I offered some constructive feedback in the old thread with the sole intention that her fans will let her know what areas she needs to focus on. Yu Na got some work with regard to her TR in order to improve her record at World Championships, which for all her talent, she only ever won it once or she may yet lose to Asada once again. Mao has greatly improved her overall skating besides jumps. Instead, I feel you all just became extremely defensive and accusatory - totally closed to feedback.

I haven't wondered anything about why members are marking Osmond's TR above Kim at all, so please quit making things up or twisting things around to suit your true purpose, which clearly, based on your opening post, was not really to have an open discussion about the gap between Kim's PCS versus Osmond's (your opening post doesn't focus on anything about Osmond or her strengths, it's entirely about trying to put Yu-Na down) or a bizarre goal that her fans will "let her know what areas to focus on"--well, I know I don't have a hotline to Yu-Na. Don't elide the point or change your argument, which you so neatly do again here.

Not trying to be defensive, but it was sincere surprise when I say there are steps before her flip, and you ask, "What steps?" :eek: There are skaters who have _nothing_ at all--preceding their jumps and/or their transitions are far more spaced out in between jumps. That's just not the case here.

And I was correct. The fact she did a SE and one Ina Bauer do not make them difficult transitions, please see response to little_meatball. Besides, if I recall correctly, I suggested a mark of 6.50 not 0.00 for TR. While 6.50 is relatively low for her, it cannot be achieved without giving consideration to her overall execution and effort - it's just that more is expected at this level. Otherwise, Plushenko would be getting all 8-9s for TR by just showing up.

What's "at this level"? Let's look at the last two world champions. Carolina Kostner received 7.96 in TR at 2012 Worlds; Miki Ando received 7.79 at 2011 Worlds. Actually, let's look at all of the medalists from the last two worlds and apply the same strict standards that you're applying to Yu-Na, so Akiko Suzuki and Alena Leonova. Yu-Na is doing more TR-wise than all of those medalists. Sadly, two of the ladies who had great transitions in the Olympic season along with Yu-Na, Laura Lepisto and Joannie Rochette, are not competing anymore.

I am happy to repeat again that this particular FS of Yu-Na's is not as difficult as either Gershwin or her Homage to Korea program, but it's certainly comparable to her past work, Miss Saigon and Scheherazade (I actually suspect it's more difficult than those two programs, but I'll have to rewatch more carefully in depth to know for sure, which I can't because I have to waste my time hunting down videos of Ashley Wagner raising her leg as she's skating backwards just to prove a point), and it is most certainly superior in TR to just about everyone else who landed on the podium at the last two worlds.

And considering all of her transitions got Yu-Na a pathetic 0.28 advantage versus Miki Ando, who has to have had the weakest transitions of any world champion since...I don't know who...I therefore have to wonder why you're making such a big deal over Yu-Na's supposed lack of transitions versus her competitors, because you never raised such a fuss with the past two world champs.

Now, you did raise a fuss about Akiko Suzuki's transitions, who skated a great FS at Skate Canada, thereby leading some people to think she should have won overall over...who was it? Oh yes, newcomer Katelyn Osmond, the victor of 2012 Skate Canada. Hmm, what a coincidence. By the way, I have never disputed that Akiko Suzuki has weak transitions because that is a longtime problem of hers, but TR is only one segment, and she does have incredible PE/IN/CH. And before we restart THAT argument again, note that I never argued that Akiko should've gotten higher PCS at either Skate Canada or NHK.

Thanks for stating the obvious, of course it's more difficult to go into a jump straight of an Ina Bauer or Spread Eagle. I am simply agreeing with you because there is nothing to disagree about except to remind you the fact in this review, I have been offering constructive feedback - call it nitpick if that suits you better - does not constitute a dismissal of the things she has achieved and it doesn't change that fact such moves were far & few in between, which I count only 2 out 10.

You keep focusing on counting the number of transitions, when the TR score isn't just about the number of transitional moves. I pointed out the obvious because you keep avoiding it or downplaying it. A skater who has a spread eagle and an Ina Bauer directly into two jumps should get a higher TR score than a skater who has those moves but spaced out in between elements (all else being equal, which of course they never are). And I even posted the ISU video that said so. You're only focused on quantity with your "I count only 2 of 10" comment, and you didn't even factor in difficulty, which is why I find your argument to be unconvincing overall.

My biggest issue with your original post is the TR score you gave is supposed to take into account all of Yu-Na's transitions and every criteria of transitions, yet in your supporting argument and justification for doing so and in this follow-up discussion, your focus and emphasis is only on transitions of a certain kind and a specific level of difficulty (bizarrely referencing "required connecting steps" that only apply in the SP!) and you don't factor in all the criteria. That's just not right. It certainly feels like a dismissal when you never mentioned difficulty to begin with, dismiss my point about it so easily, and go back to counting.

While that is generally true, it depends. At the elite senior level, most skaters do not have any difficulty to transition from the exit of a jump with momentum into either a spin or step sequence. Rarely would you see the Top 15 skaters in the world needing a lot of crossovers or strokes to start their step sequence. Further to that, the seamless transition without needing much assistance or rest falls more under SS (this is an acceleration, which is defined in as a sub-criterion of SS) than TR as the latter is and I quote : "The varied and/or intricate footwork, positions, movements, and holds that link all elements." If a skater who went from a jump straight into a step sequence, then there is no linking footwork or movement to speak of and therefore, one cannot evaluate something that was not performed. That is also why in the GOE criteria, examples were specifically given and defined that extra consideration should be given when spin or step sequences (or equivalent free skating moves) immediately preceding the jump but the rule never defined or stated that a spin or step sequence immediately preceded by a jump should be given extra consideration. Please see ISU Communication 1724, p. 10 "Jump Elements" #2 Therefore, such execution does not set the said skater apart from the rest to warrant any special consideration for TR in my view.

It's more common for top skaters to go from a jump to a spin, but it's less common for skater to go directly from a jump to a step sequence. The top 15 skaters may not need "a lot of crossovers or strokes" before their footwork but they usually do take a few. Regardless, I don't agree with your logic on the point about top 15 skaters; virtually all skaters at any level can do a spread eagle or Ina Bauer, that doesn't mean it doesn't count as a transition.

In the ISU video on intricacy that I linked to before, you can actually see that they showed the whole segment of the climax of Yu-Na Kim's Miss Saigon finale--from Ina Bauer to double axel to the final spin. Why bother showing the spin if the only element that matters was the Ina Bauer into the double axel? Their point was that it was a seamless series of elements, transition to listed element to listed element, no break between the jump and the final spin--and that's when transitions become intricate.

All right, can you please give us other examples, using the youtube link, difficult transitions and/or free skating moves that Yu Na did that was not immediately preceding or after an element?

I feel like I'm running around in circles here. I gave you multiple examples of other transitions; you denied that there was anything before the flip, then when confronted with multiple replies that there was, changed the argument into about its level of difficulty. I gave other examples and I used the wrong labeling, you corrected me, which is fine, but you never admitted that it was a move that ought to be counted as a transition. So I'm not sure what other purpose this will serve, I suspect you will just find a way to find some mysterious reason to discount these moves, but fine, one last try.

Here is an example that I referred to as a body movement transition, Yu-Na is using her whole body while she skates and she is not just standing still on two feet. This immediately follows her 2A combo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=O59GUx8iJMI#t=154s

I would probably characterize this more as a choreographic passage, but there are some skating moves throughout in addition to the upper body movement, which per the ISU definition, counts as a body movement transition. It's directly following her footwork sequence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=O59GUx8iJMI#t=95s

If she was moving her body but not her feet at all, then I would say that's a move that is clearly only for choreographic value.

I am confused. :confused: You just claimed that I only considered moves that were immediately preceding or after an element but now you are saying she did them connected to a jump unlike other skaters who didn't? :unsure: So did she have more or not and were they connected to the elements or standalone?

I am saying that since those particular transitional moves are connected to jumps, they count more towards the difficulty part of the transitions score even if they don't count add towards your running checklist on quantity.

Once again, I need to remind you I did not suggest a mark of 0.00 for her TR but 6.50. Does Plushenko have good upper body movement and transitions? Yes, without a doubt. Does he have issue with Linking Footwork? Yes, because he is not doing much one-foot skating. My comments were focused what I deem the specific areas she needs to work on - the movements beneath her knees, not the ones above them. The fact I didn't comment on her upper body does not mean I am not giving her credit for them.

It certainly felt like you were not giving her credit for upper body movement, because you justified your score of 6.50 (which judges ALL transitions) by only listing and focusing on "difficult" transitions (and you keep changing your argument in regards to what can sufficiently be counted as difficult, which I addressed elsewhere). I find your argument incomplete and therefore disingenuous.

I see that paranoia has got the best of you and making you a normally logical and rational person to make such absurd comments. Threat to who? Osmond? That's very flattering. I don't think anyone has seriously believed that Osmond is a threat to Kim's chances at the 2013 World. Besides, Osmond's goal is to finish top 10 at Worlds this year so unless Kim can be cloned and physically occupy all the spots from 1st to 10th, Kim is a threat to Asada or Kostner's ambition but not to Osmond.

Oh, goodness, I am not paranoid, I am just calling it like I see it. You have so much knowledge but it's always carefully applied for specific skaters and specific situations, and it's not that difficult to see how differently you treat skaters based on nationality, which is what is disappointing. Your most objective posts are in regards to Canadian skaters compared to other Canadian skaters, and non-Canadian skaters versus non-Canadian skaters when not directly in comparison with a Canadian skater.

I am saying you consider Yu-Na a threat for the world title, not specifically to Osmond though she's the intended beneficiary of this discussion, therefore you are clearly intent on exaggerating and distorting her weaknesses in order to...I don't know, make it known to as many people as possible. Not that I really think there is much link between what happens on this forum and what happens in the skating world.

You might say, "Of course she's a threat for the world title," but let's face it, not all comebacks work as well as Yu-Na's; see Lysacek, Evan and Weir, Johnny. Instead of giving her credit for a terrific comeback though you have spent more time focused on her transitions or purported lack thereof.

You could just as easily have started a discussion bemoaning the lack of true lutzes (not one of the medalists at the recent GPF had one, nor did any of the reigning world medalists), lack of difficult triple/triples and how they're not rewarded enough, the way that many ladies capable of doing a 3/3 in the SP opt to go for the easy route and do not attempt it in the FS due to the fact that combinations are not rewarded enough..but you didn't. These are all serious issues in the top ladies ranks today. Coincidentally though, these issues all apply to Osmond, so based on that, I would not expect you to start that discussion.

I think it's a bit odd, by the way, that one the one hand you cite how it is possible to win Worlds at a young age (referencing Lipinski and Baiul), list the weaknesses of just about every single top 10 returning skater out there, yet then state a very low expectation of a top 10 placement for Osmond at Worlds. Yeah, that's her goal, but what's your expectation? Based on all that and your posts in support of Osmond, you must be hoping for a better placement than that. And there's nothing wrong with that. I'm just pointing out that that's a possible motivation behind your post.

Uh...excuse me, during the leading up to the 2010 Olympics, the Korean fans totally adored me to the point some people on GS thought I may be Korean. Thanks, I am very flattered but I am not. They sent me messages, asking me questions, politely and nicely - never the kind of animosity thrown at me after Kim ended her partnership with Orser and of course now as well, which I am frankly not sure why. I don't understand why you made up falsehood like this, I think this is quite rude and unfair because many people here in GS can be my witness to that and that's one of the reasons I came to this forum because a Korean fan asked me to come here. I call spade a spade. You'll see me defending Asada's win at NHK but I'd criticize her marks at Japanese Nationals. Kim has done great things leading to the Olympic so of course, back then, I pretty much only had nice things to say about her. I am dismayed at your animosity but having read many of your thoughtful posts, I am inclined to believe you simply got carried away and let your feelings colored your memory and will not take offense at what you just said. I hope that if you want to continue conversation in the future, it would be done in a more respectful and less accusatory tone.

I wasn't one of those Korean fans who totally worshiped you, so the above is not relevant. (I'm American, for the record.) I have found most of your posts interesting and many of them insightful, but I have always detected a strong national bias in their context and purpose, a bias that only lessens if you are focused solely on comparing Canadian skaters with each other, or a comparison of non-Canadian skaters who were not directly in competition with a Canadian skater.

It's not a matter of agreement or disagreement; there are many posters here that I agree or disagree with, but the pattern of your constant support of Canadian skaters and detailed arguments about the weaknesses of non-Canadian skaters is disappointing. In terms of execution the way that you put forward your arguments is very impressive and I'm not even sure many are aware of how expertly you revise your original argument and narrowly define things to support your point, to the point where it makes your overall argument incomplete and inaccurate.

Call me crazy, but I think someone who positions themselves as an expert and above a fan ought to be more objective and comprehensive in the way they apply their knowledge and not play into nationalistic bias and not engage in politicking, which is to play up the strengths of their own skater while playing up weaknesses of rival skaters. Why? Because as a skating fan I like and appreciate things about skaters from different countries; I see weaknesses in skaters from my own country, I see strengths in skaters from other countries, and in the case of Yu-Na, I see strengths and weaknesses in her skating even though she's certainly one of my favorite skaters.

I am sorry that you object to my comments but I do strongly believe that if Yu-Na Kim skated for Canada and Kaetlyn Osmond skated for Korea, you would never have started this discussion. There are many top skaters, such as the reigning world champion, who have fewer and less difficult transitions than Yu-Na but you focused on Yu-Na. I am not paranoid for being put-off by this; you had the option of just pointing out Osmond's strengths in the components area and I would have been happy to join in on the praise, in fact you can see my posts praising Osmond on this forum.

That's my honest reaction, just as I honestly reacted when a poster started a thread about the ISU "carrying out an inquiry" into the results of Skate Canada, I reacted negatively and said it was ridiculous. Had I known something like this was going to happen, maybe I would have never voiced my opposition there...but no, at the end of the day, no matter what political motivations, I try to be fair, and I thought that thread was unfair to Osmond. I am not the most knowledgeable fan, I make mistakes in commentary, and I have skaters whom I like and skaters whom I like less, but I am not one to negatively campaign against other skaters, either, or start a thread with ulterior motives.

What exactly do I have to be paranoid about, anyway? Yu-Na possibly losing? *shrug* Been there, survived that. :cool: I've been a skating fan long enough, two decades and counting, and sometimes as a fan you win, sometimes you lose. I would love to see Yu-Na win Worlds and everything beyond but having traveled this road before, I know it's a difficult road and it only gets tougher, it never gets easier. Luckily, she's given the skating world great programs, great performances, and a possible loss won't erase the amazing things she's done or the victories she's already had. I think it's fair to say that if Yu-Na doesn't win the OGM, I'm not going to be as bummed as I was when Michelle Kwan didn't win after '98, '02, or had to withdraw at the 2006 Olympics. I'm also not going to be as tortured as some Canadian fans would be if Patrick Chan somehow doesn't win the OGM in men's (poor Patrick, bearing the weight of all the Olympics losses of great Canadian champions before him).

In any case, this discussion won't change the fact that I think Osmond is a great talent and yes, I do expect her to be competitive and challenge for podium spots in the future. She has some strengths, she has some weakness, and I'll likely mention both in the future without the intention of exaggerating either. And I hope to enjoy her future performances and look forward to seeing her skate.
 

Robeye

Final Flight
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Sorry to bore everyone. Very long post follows in order to fully address all the points and try to close as many loopholes as possible.

No need for apologies, jaylee. That was one of the most closely observed, compellingly argued, and absorbing series of posts I've read in a while (but then, I am partial to nuts-and-bolts expositions).

There is, to my mind, nothing wrong with feeling passion for a skater or skate. Where the articulation of such passion goes wrong, IMO, is when it lacks 1) rigor of logic and understanding, and/or 2) intellectual honesty and good faith. The lack of the former is generally termed "naive", while the absence of the latter is the sophistic, the casuistic, even, shall we say, the Mephistophelean.

There are examples of both in this thread, but happily, yours is not one of them ;).
 
Last edited:

Mrs. P

Uno, Dos, twizzle!
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Well I will say it's a testament to Kaetlyn that we're spending so much talking about her with all these threads springing up about her. While these threads were started by her clear fans, I don't have a problem of saying that clearly her skating DOES appeal to many and I don't blame people for thinking she has something special going on -- I do too.

I think it's important for me to take a moment and appreciate the fact that despite this back-and-forth from her fanatics and detractors (and everyone else in-between), Kaetlyn clearly has a great head on her shoulders and a wonderful coach to help her keep it there. I really enjoy her tweets actually -- she's clearly absorbing every experience and enjoying the opportunity to be with other skaters. She also has a terrific sense of humor. And I do believe all that is reflected in her actual skating.

Yes, there are things she could work on. But she has a clear desire to improve -- and has improved -- which will only fare well for her in the long-run.

I believe in the old journalists adage of "show, don't tell." I look forward to seeing Kaetlyn further fulfilling the promise that she has shown so far.
 

Krislite

Medalist
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
[...]

What exactly do I have to be paranoid about, anyway? Yu-Na possibly losing? *shrug* Been there, survived that. :cool: I've been a skating fan long enough, two decades and counting, and sometimes as a fan you win, sometimes you lose. I would love to see Yu-Na win Worlds and everything beyond but having traveled this road before, I know it's a difficult road and it only gets tougher, it never gets easier. Luckily, she's given the skating world great programs, great performances, and a possible loss won't erase the amazing things she's done or the victories she's already had. I think it's fair to say that if Yu-Na doesn't win the OGM, I'm not going to be as bummed as I was when Michelle Kwan didn't win after '98, '02, or had to withdraw at the 2006 Olympics. I'm also not going to be as tortured as some Canadian fans would be if Patrick Chan somehow doesn't win the OGM in men's (poor Patrick, bearing the weight of all the Olympics losses of great Canadian champions before him).

[...]

That's the great thing about watching her compete this time around. She already won OGM. No matter what happens in London and Sochi, she's already Olympic Champion, World Champion, and owns dozens of other major titles. She's won everything she can--as a novice, a junior and a senior. And she won them resoundingly, world-record scores and all. She's got no reputation to defend or redeem. This time around is purely icing on the cake. So it's a little easier to take the criticism and negativity and nit-picking than before, because whatever wallylutz says can't erase history.

I'm quite happy she came back and rather seriously at that. Not like the comeback efforts of Evan or Johnny or Sasha, or even Olympic Gold Medalists from other disciplines. She's way ahead at this stage of the game than even Plushenko was in 2009-2010. What happened to Plushenko when he lost to Lysacek? Nothing, he's still one the greatest figure skaters of all time.
 
Top