2021 Worlds: Men's FS "Thoughts and Observations"

[TontoK]

There are always debates about PCS, but I'm never quite sure of what the scale actually means. Intuitively, if you're grading on a scale of .25 to 10, then a 5 should be the score awarded to a skater with about average components. But the average of what?

Is it the average of all skaters, ranging from beginners to World Championship participants?

Or is it the average of all skaters in the particular competition?

Or does it mean average of all championship programs every skated? Do Dick Button's skills play into the scoring range?

Does a junior's PCS equate to what that skater would earn at a senior competition? Is an 8 an 8, no matter where it's performed? Or do the expectations vary by level?

This is one instance in which I'm more interested in documented facts, rather than opinions of what it should be... but I can't find anything to help me out when I search.

 

[Tavi...]

Yeah and I honestly think this is the key thing. Jason’s skating is incredibly special but no skater with zero or 1 borderline quad is special enough to be comparatively on par with someone doing 5 or 6 quads - even if Chen wasn’t as artistic as he is. It would be the equivalent of a skater doing only doubles and somehow deserving to be considered on par with skaters doing all triples.

I do believe PCS can only go so far. At some point you need to be producing the technical goods.

People only advocate for a higher PCS gap because Jason’s current technical ability simply does not allow him to challenge Chen.

At some point you need to stop griping that the PCS scale isn’t increased and Jason given more credit so the gap is closer and take greater issue with Jason’s inability - not for lack of trying mind you - to technically cut it. Everything he does outside of jumps is stellar but unfortunately jumps are key in this sport. PCS shouldn’t be a means to “save” a skater or absolve them.

Wow. It’s one thing to love Nathan and quads. It’s quite another to attribute your own (incorrect) views to Jason fans and to dismiss anyone but Nathan and guys who can do 5-6 quads as just not “special enough” to ever measure up, no matter how “incredibly special” they are. As a reminder, the ISU sets and tinkers with the values of elements and the requirements for awarding PCS and GOE based on anecdotal perceptions of difficulty and the direction they want the sport to go, not on scientific data. So maybe stop equating quadliness with godliness. For the record, as a Jason fan, I don’t want quad scores to be lowered or PCS to be increased. All I want is for PCS and GOE to be accurately scored across the board, and for judges to stop gifting high PCS and GOE to skaters based on their reputation, start order, or quad heavy programs. You don’t seem to have any problem applying that principle to Hanyu, but you apparently do when it comes to Jason and Nathan.

 

[anonymoose_au]

There are always debates about PCS, but I'm never quite sure of what the scale actually means. Intuitively, if you're grading on a scale of .25 to 10, then a 5 should be the score awarded to a skater with about average components. But the average of what?

Is it the average of all skaters, ranging from beginners to World Championship participants?

From what I've managed to work out it's this. Like when you watch novice or even younger skaters they get like 2 or 2.5 in their PCS categories even though they might be really amazing for their age (like ice coverage for a teeny tiny 5 year old should be considered a lot differently to a senior skater.) So basically it covers every skater at every level.

Which is probably be an issue, because even the lowest ranked skater at Worlds who's fallen all over the place and messed up spins - is not going to be scored as low as a really amazing 5 year old - even though they'd never compete directly with each other. I think that's really weird...but it does explain why senior skaters never get much below a 7 in PCS.

 

[TontoK]

From what I've managed to work out it's this. Like when you watch novice or even younger skaters they get like 2 or 2.5 in their PCS categories even though they might be really amazing for their age (like ice coverage for a teeny tiny 5 year old should be considered a lot differently to a senior skater.) So basically it covers every skater at every level.

Which is probably be an issue, because even the lowest ranked skater at Worlds is not going to be scored as low as a really amazing 5 year old - even though they'd never compete directly with each other. I think that's really weird...but it does explain why senior skaters never get much below a 7 in PCS.

If what you're saying is true (and I believe you), then that explains a lot.

People might complain that top notch Skater A has better components, but was scored only slightly higher than top notch Skater B at the World Championships. Well, if the .25-10 scale includes 5-year-olds, then a slight PCS point advantage is probably correct.

It doesn't solve the mystery of head-to-head debates... why was Jason scored less than Nathan, for example... but it should put to bed outrageous claims that "Skater A should be scored 2 points higher in every category."

With the advent of the quad era, people forget that technical superiority has generally stood on podiums for a long time. And among the best technical/athletic skaters, "artistry" has generally been the tie breaker in determining how the medals shake out. Not always, but mostly. Rarely has a beautiful skater won major events without also delivering the expected technical content of the day - at least that I can recall.

And YES I understand that technical ability is not solely defined by jumping, but in our current points-based system, I don't think anyone can credibly argue that it's unimportant in determining placements.

 

[el henry]

If what you're saying is true (and I believe you), then that explains a lot.

People might complain that top notch Skater A has better components, but was scored only slightly higher than top notch Skater B at the World Championships. Well, if the .25-10 scale includes 5-year-olds, then a slight PCS point advantage is probably correct.

It doesn't solve the mystery of head-to-head debates... why was Jason scored less than Nathan, for example... but it should put to bed outrageous claims that "Skater A should be scored 2 points higher in every category."

With the advent of the quad era, people forget that technical superiority has generally stood on podiums for a long time. And among the best technical/athletic skaters, "artistry" has generally been the tie breaker in determining how the medals shake out. Not always, but mostly. Rarely has a beautiful skater won major events without also delivering the expected technical content of the day - at least that I can recall.

And YES I understand that technical ability is not solely defined by jumping, but in our current points-based system, I don't think anyone can credibly argue that it's unimportant in determining placements.

But no one is arguing, as far as I can tell, that an artistic program with lesser technical content, however technical content is defined, should win. That seems to be a straw person constructed to explain why artistic or program components or whatever you want call it, should not be scored fairly.

I have never seen the artistic scores as a tiebreaker. Janet Lynn was slaying the artistic scores, and Trixie Schuba was slaying the technical continent of her time, and Trixi won. The artistic score was not a tiebreaker between two skaters with equal technical merit. Janet, at least in 1972, had absolutely no chance of standing on the podium, but no one argued that as a result her artistic scores had no merit or should not be calculated correctly.

At least if I am understanding the argument correctly which I could be completely not.

 

[TontoK]

But no one is arguing, as far as I can tell, that an artistic program with lesser technical content, however technical content is defined, should win. That seems to be a straw person constructed to explain why artistic or program components or whatever you want call it, should not be scored fairly.

I have never seen the artistic scores as a tiebreaker. Janet Lynn was slaying the artistic scores, and Trixie Schuba was slaying the technical continent of her time, and Trixi won. The artistic score was not a tiebreaker between two skaters with equal technical merit. Janet, at least in 1972, had absolutely no chance of standing on the podium, but no one argued that as a result her artistic scores had no merit or should not be calculated correctly.

At least if I am understanding the argument correctly which I could be completely not.

Well, lets go back to two of our favorites - John Curry and Toller Cranston.

They were roughly equivalent on the technical side in terms of jumps, but Curry was deemed more artistic... although I do not entirely subscribe to that description, as you know. But anyway... dismissing the figures... Curry tended to come out on top of that... if I'm remembering correctly.

The Lynn/Schuba argument doesn't quite fit the scenarios we're discussing Schuba was SOOOO dominant in terms of figures that her free skating was almost irrelevant, especially in the era when figures were so highly weighted. Lynn actually won the free program in 1972 (Trixi finished 7th), and for all the well-deserved acclaim for her artistry, she was also IMO the best jumper of the ladies of her time. She had it all, except for school figures.

 

[Mathman]

About the scale for PCSs, although in principal there is a single scale for beinners up to world champ[iuons, it seems pretty clear that the scale is not linear. The scale for the top skaters is stretched out and the for beginners is squeezed together. This is inevitable: to be of any use at all there has to be a way to distinguish the very best at the world championship from the not-quite-the-very best by spreding the scale out to, say, 7 t0 10, though in comparison with all skaters, the range ought to be 9.99999 to 10 for the top handful.

I thikl that in practice judges also do spread out the scale on a competition by compettiion basis. In a compotition for beinners where the scale ought to be, say, 2.5 to 2.75 for every skater, the judges might go from 2.0 to 3.5 -- otherwise the scoring system has no uti;ity at either the low levels or the high.

 

[Mathman]

The place where I wish the judging of PCSs could be improved is in the over-tight correlation among the 5 component marks. It should be possible for a skater to have, say, excellent skating skills and transitions, but weak choreography, musicality and presentation. I believe that this is the main ezxplanation of how, for instance, Nathan Chen can get higher PCSs than Jason Brown. Nathan skates fast and doe4s a lot of quads. This automatically gets him 9.5 in SS. Once that's established, he is pretty much guaranteed to get 9.25 in TR and 9,5 in all,mthe three.

 

[el henry]

Well, lets go back to two of our favorites - John Curry and Toller Cranston.

They were roughly equivalent on the technical side in terms of jumps, but Curry was deemed more artistic... although I do not entirely subscribe to that description, as you know. But anyway... dismissing the figures... Curry tended to come out on top of that... if I'm remembering correctly.

The Lynn/Schuba argument doesn't quite fit the scenarios we're discussing Schuba was SOOOO dominant in terms of figures that her free skating was almost irrelevant, especially in the era when figures were so highly weighted. Lynn actually won the free program in 1972 (Trixi finished 7th), and for all the well-deserved acclaim for her artistry, she was also IMO the best jumper of the ladies of her time. She had it all, except for school figures.

I see what you are saying my friend, but that is exactly is why I picked Trixie. So very dominant in the school figures that no one had a hope of catching her elsewhere, so her artistic scores later would not have made a difference. At the time, Dick Button would call jumps "the tricks", so they didn't have quite the technical label (if I am remembering correctly), I think they were considered more part of the artistry. Technical was the watching paint dry school figures.

Of course, if it was a closer contest (sadly for me John Curry and Toller Cranston were not all that close in scores at least in 1976), you are right any difference in artistic scores could have made the difference, so completely agree.

In any event (and I am not saying you said this, I am jumping off) when the Jason fans I know say they believe he should have higher PCS scores, they are not saying he should win Olympic gold. We are saying he should have higher PCS scores. Whether or not it makes a difference to anyone else, it makes a difference to us.

ETA: And I have no answer to your excellent original query, exactly how is it measured. The joy of a subjectively judged sport....

 

[TontoK]

About the scale for PCSs, although in principal there is a single scale for beinners up to world champ[iuons, it seems pretty clear that the scale is not linear. The scale for the top skaters is stretched out and the for beginners is squeezed together. This is inevitable: to be of any use at all there has to be a way to distinguish the very best at the world championship from the not-quite-the-very best by spreding the scale out to, say, 7 t0 10, though in comparison with all skaters, the range ought to be 9.99999 to 10 for the top handful.

I thikl that in practice judges also do spread out the scale on a competition by compettiion basis. In a compotition for beinners where the scale ought to be, say, 2.5 to 2.75 for every skater, the judges might go from 2.0 to 3.5 -- otherwise the scoring system has no uti;ity at either the low levels or the high.

I agree. The difference in components between skaters who make the free skate at a World Championship should be very very tiny... if their place on the range of values is the top 20 or so skaters in the world, compared to thousands of beginners and mid-range skaters on a 10 point scale.

The judges have to make some decision to differentiate, no matter what the logic of an all-encompassing 10 point scale might dictate.

ETA: The general lack of specificity regarding exactly how PCS are scored is baffling, considering that it is intended to be roughly equal to the technical score, at least in theory.

Think about it. The technical score is comprised of exact base values for each element, with bullet points outlining how GOE is to be awarded. Theoretically, a judge can say "I gave that element a +2, because the skater hit bullet points 2, 4, 5, and 6, but that was offset because of - GOE bullets concerning this and this." Now we might not agree, but at least there is some methodology behind the Technical Score. With PCS: "The skater was awarded exactly 8.75 for transitions, because I say so."

 

[karne]

Here's the spread according to the official charts:

10 - Outstanding
9 - Excellent
8 - Very Good
7 - Good
6 - Above Average
5 - Average
4 - Fair
3 - Weak
2 - Poor
1 - Very Poor
0.25-0.75 - Extremely Poor

(I'll have you know I was very excited the first time I managed to drag one of my PCs over 2.)

Worlds skaters are probably anywhere between 5-10. Some of the much lower ranked skaters will be getting 5s.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Wow. It’s one thing to love Nathan and quads. It’s quite another to attribute your own (incorrect) views to Jason fans and to dismiss anyone but Nathan and guys who can do 5-6 quads as just not “special enough” to ever measure up, no matter how “incredibly special” they are. As a reminder, the ISU sets and tinkers with the values of elements and the requirements for awarding PCS and GOE based on anecdotal perceptions of difficulty and the direction they want the sport to go, not on scientific data. So maybe stop equating quadliness with godliness. For the record, as a Jason fan, I don’t want quad scores to be lowered or PCS to be increased. All I want is for PCS and GOE to be accurately scored across the board, and for judges to stop gifting high PCS and GOE to skaters based on their reputation, start order, or quad heavy programs. You don’t seem to have any problem applying that principle to Hanyu, but you apparently do when it comes to Jason and Nathan.

PCS and GOE are subjective (as in the criteria/bullets are subjective) so “inaccuracy” is often a matter of opinion and not fact - saying Jason deserves 50 PCS for a program is an opinion people are entitled to but the reality is that a program without quads is easier to execute and not as impactful from a judged standpoint. I get people loving Brown’s performances regardless of how he skates (as they should since he is superior to most skaters artistically and choreography-wise) but this is competitive skating. And with something subjective like PCS calling the system into account or claiming gross inaccuracy in the judging because your fave skater got a 96 instead of a 99 or a +4 instead of a +5 is simply not factoring in the fact that judges are supposed to be critical. They don’t always get it right but if someone’s argument is Brown is better so he needs higher marks to keep him in the mix that is antithetical to the most competitive skater winning.

Also Jason has a good reputation - it’s why he’s in the mix I. Spite of no reliable quad and has the highest quadless SP score of any skater. He doesn’t deserve high 90 PCS for every program he puts out there - and just because he’s a good wonderful skater doesn’t mean others aren’t putting in the effort or programs or performance to be on par with it, or even better.

Oh and for the record even if Hanyu were a bad skater artistically but had 5 quads I still think he should be placed ahead of Jason with barely 1 or no quads. That’s just way too much of a discrepancy. Jin is a good example of a skater who artistically isn’t the greatest but with 6 quads across both programs should beat a 1 or no quad Brown, if Jin goes clean given his jump advantages. The other guys are pulling ahead of Brown in the numbers of quads they do and the growth in Brown’s maturity and artistry while admirable he needs to step it up technically in order to be considered on par/superior as a competitor (which is different than being on par/superior as a skater, which he is).

 

[TontoK]

The Jason Debate gets tiresome, because it's repetitive. No new ground is broken.

• Jason is a beautiful skater, deserving of high PCS marks.
• His PCS may or may not be fairly judged in relation to his competitors.
• His TES is lacking in relation to his competitors who compete multiple quads.
• While the jumps might not be as difficult, Jason's elements are superior in quality. Or not.
• The scoring system is fair. Or it is not fair.
• If everyone delivers their planned content, Jason cannot win.
• Rarely does everyone complete their planned content successfully, so it's anyone's game.
• Medals and placements don't mean anything. Or they mean everything.

I know we're a discussion board, but it seems we've been having this same discussion for years.

 

[Tavi...]

@CanadianSkaterGuy I continue to disagree with you on many levels, but since I don’t think we’ll ever agree, perhaps there’s no need to continue the conversation. I will just say, though, that under the current system, a skater who jumps quads is already handsomely rewarded in (1) base value; and (2) GOE as a percentage of that higher base value. That’s not true of PCS. You apparently think PCS should be tied to base value or quads, but under the current system it’s not. As to the rest, yes PCS is somewhat subjective as is GOE; what I mean by inaccuracy is that, for example, a skater shouldn’t be getting +4 on a quad if the jump or combo is landed off balance or at a dead stop - yet it happens all the time.

@TontoK, some skaters are lightning rods for criticism. Jason has always been one of those skaters, in part because he encapsulates the debate about what competitive skating is or should be, and I kind of doubt that debate will stop anytime soon. But if you want to start a new US men’s thread to discuss the US men’s prospects for the upcoming season, I’ll be happy to participate.

 

[Blades of Passion]

The notion that someone with a bunch of Quads automatically deserves to be placed ahead of someone without Quads, goes against the idea of how figure skating is supposed to be scored. Quads are not the sport, and PCS needs to stop being given out so freely (and GOE). Brian Boitano's 1988 Olympic LP should be scored very close to Nathan Chen's 2018 World LP. Better jump quality and better skating skills and performance and attention to music across the board. Nathan, despite the Quads, doesn't show the ability to do a Triple Lutz or Triple Axel with the quality Boitano did, nor a spread eagle sequence like that, nor embody a complete character throughout a performance.

Someone who is able to score 100 on Technical can certainly only deserve 70 PCS. Which means someone like Jason Brown being able to score 80 on Technical and 92 on PCS deserves to beat them. In another example, Jason Brown's 2016 Skate America LP should also be right there with Nathan's 2018 Worlds LP.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Come on now - someone who does 5 quads in a program versus a skater who does 1 quad (and not reliably at that) are simply not comparable.

And yeah a skater could get 100 TES and 70 PCS but that’s a straw man argument given that we are comparing Brown to Chen/Hanyu who are so established skaters that they would never get 70 PCS even if they omitted every jumping pass.

Does a skater who does 5 triples deserve to be ranked behind a skater who attempts 1 triple?

Would people feel Jason should be at the top of the pack even if he did only doubles because his overall skating is just that good? How much of a technical disparity are we going to allow before we concede that Chen/Hanyu are simply on another level competitively and they’re getting high artistic marks because they still have good programs but with quads in between. If there were a competition for best artistic or show skater Jason would have a shot but he is not at the upper echelon of men’s skating until he gets the jumps. In fact he is THE example of the skater who has it all but without the jumps is (deservedly) out of contention against most of the competitors who are bringing the firepower.

And to compare Brian Boitano and Chen as if they are technically even in the same realm. But hey spread eagles! Totally as risky as multiple quads. Boitano’s Olympic LP was stellar for the time but by today’s standards it wouldn’t even crack the podium at Worlds let alone challenge Chen’s World 2018 LP. There was a ton of two footed skating and stroking, he barely had any spin positions that were held for more than 2 or 3 rotations (I don’t think any in his combo spin were 2 rotations), he two footed his second triple axel (and no triple axel-triple toe), and had only one triple-triple. Granted it was superbly done for the times, and the freeskate allowed skaters to neglect things like spin rotations, and yes there were some lovely highlights like the spread eagle, but you can’t even compare them from a competitive skating level/difficulty standpoint.

 

[BlissfulSynergy]

A revealing and informative lutz jump technique analysis by Skate Insider re the top 13 men at 2021 Worlds (a few top men did not perform lutzes, so they aren't analyzed):

Best Menâs Lutz Jump? World Championships 2021 - Lutz Edge Analysis (Nathan Chen, Mikhail Kolyada)

Another loooong overdue video here, sorry I know itâs late. A lutz jump analysis on the ladies has been uploaded, now letâs take a closer detailed look at th...

www.youtube.com

Very interesting that Kevin Aymoz has such accurate technique on the lutz, and obviously huge height on his jumps, in addition to clean landings, at least on the lutz combo analyzed in this video. It's his toe tap though being somewhat tilted which could be the cause of him looking off in the air at times. Or perhaps it is the huge height he gets on his jumps which makes his landings heavier looking at times and thus his jumps don't tend to appear as effortless as those of the other guys who have the best lutz jump technique:

And they are: Nathan Chen; Mikhail Kolyada; Keegan Messing; Han Yan; Kevin Aymoz

Yuzuru, Semenenko, and Shoma did not perform lutzes. Commenters note that Shoma has terrible lutz technique, so it's good he left it out. I guess lutz is not the strongest suit for Yuzu or Semenenko either, albeit Yuzu has been attempting quad lutz on occasion.

Jason Brown exhibited fairly good technique with good toe tap, no pre-rotation and clean landing, except that he doesn't maintain his deep edge but switches to the flat of his blade as he launches into the lutz jump. Jun Hwan Cha had a deep outside edge going into his lutz and no pre-rotation, but he shifted to a slight inside edge and then landed clean, but the second jump in his combo was under-rotated. Yuma Kagiyama had a good outside edge but shifted to a flat edge going into the lutz, plus he pre-rotated and his toe pick was low angled. Although his landing was clean on the lutz, Yuma stepped out of the landing on the second jump in his combo.

Matteo and Daniel G had the messiest lutz technique of the top 13 men analyzed with too much pre-rotation, plus both had errors on toe tap with their entire blades hitting the ice rather than a light toe tap; both had shallow edges going into the jump and then Matteo shifted to a slight inside rather than outside edge. Matteo's jump was landed cleanly; Daniel's landing was under-rotated. On the basis of Han Yan's superb jump technique and overall better SS (and if he had not made a few mistakes in his program), there's reason for Han being scored much better, particularly on SS! Han's SS score should be in the 9s. Is it better to have messy, pre-rotated quads or no quads but perfectly executed triple jumps and clean landings with top-notch SS?

Furthermore, this analysis indicates to me even more clearly how difficult the sport is not only for athletes, but also for judges. Yet, it is up to the ISU and the judges (& tech panels) to do a much better job. Right now, the overemphasis in judging is on how clean jump landings are, rather than in placing any emphasis on proper edge and toe tap technique going into the lutz jump, much less taking into account egregious pre-rotations. It's no excuse that there is difficulty in seeing everything in detail with the naked eye. Careful slow-motion replay observation is necessary (supposedly the job of tech panels).

Perhaps consistency on their lutz technique (among the best executors) may vary from competition-to-competition, based on numerous factors.

 

[Dawn825]

I havent really been following this thread but I agree with CanadianSkaterGuy about Jason. Should some of his programs be getting the highest PCS at certain competitions, yes. But should his PCS put him ahead in the final scores of skaters with vastly more advanced technical content, no. The problem with watching Jason (and this whole sport in general) is that it's so hard to just sit back and say "that was a beautiful program, I'm happy to have seen it and the scores/placement dont affect my life at all". The other problem is that there's no longer a pro circuit in America. We cant just look forward to watching Jason be creative and charismatic after the Olympics w/o the quad pressure. It's unclear how a skater w/ his talents gets rewarded career-wise anymore.

 

[el henry]

I havent really been following this thread but I agree with CanadianSkaterGuy about Jason. Should some of his programs be getting the highest PCS at certain competitions, yes. But should his PCS put him ahead in the final scores of skaters with vastly more advanced technical content, no. The problem with watching Jason (and this whole sport in general) is that it's so hard to just sit back and say "that was a beautiful program, I'm happy to have seen it and the scores/placement dont affect my life at all". The other problem is that there's no longer a pro circuit in America. We cant just look forward to watching Jason be creative and charismatic after the Olympics w/o the quad pressure. It's unclear how a skater w/ his talents gets rewarded career-wise anymore.

I agree, but that is not where the sticking point has been, at least how I read the posts.

I believe I have seen arguments to the effect of "Jason's fans say that Jason's PCS should place him ahead of skaters landing multiple good quads in a program." That is not true, That is a straw person. Easy to knock down, but not what any Jason fan I know is saying.

No Jason fan I know, personally or on this Board (at least those gushing in the Fan Fest, and if anyone reading this is Jason fan not gushing there, come join us. ), says that Jason's PCS should place him ahead of a skater who lands five good quads. Or four. We might wish that the scoring system rewarded his talents, but a wish is not an expectation. We all agree.

I am able to separate scores from final placement due to my early fan girling for Toller. Best. Skater. Revolutionary. Skater. Never won gold in international comps. Ever. I may not like it, but I got used to it.

 

[BlissfulSynergy]

I would separate the reaction to Toller during his era from the current judging scene. There were just officials in the sport during Toller's time who were overly conservative, stuck-in-the-mud, and resistant to Toller's, at that time, revolutionary creativity and unique movement style. As we know, despite Toller not receiving all the credit and accolades he deserved during his career, his presence in the sport, along with that of John Curry, dramatically changed men's figure skating.

Like you, I'm a fan of Jason's skating. I prefer to just enjoy watching him skate every chance I get, as time moves on quickly and he won't be skating competitively forever. Hopefully, he will transition to skating in shows that are available for a lengthy period of time. But as we know, nothing is promised.

The men's landscape will sorely miss Jason's and Nathan's presence when they retire. Jason brings the whole of his being to the ice when he skates. His gifts are extraordinary, as is his character. The same is true for Nathan. As far as the judging goes, we know it is woefully imperfect and that politics and rep scoring are always factors.

In my opinion, Jason's gifts, even w/o a quad are exceptional. That's why he scores as high as he does. And even then, he barely ever receives the highest score for PCS. Jason has worked hard on incorporating quads, despite not always attempting them. At this point, the challenge is likely more mental than anything else, since he's landed numerous clean quads in practice.

It's silly to become overly caught up in where Jason places. I think his recent World's placement was fair, except he deserves the highest PCS in most categories. But PCS are never fairly scored. The arguments re Jason being ahead of some guys with quads is overdone. The point is that the judges aren't even judging proper jump technique carefully, which is clear from the Skate Insider video analysis I linked. Guys with messy, pre-rotated quads, poor jump technique and less than competent blade skills should not be ahead of skaters like Jason and Han Yan, except that Jason and Han also need to skate relatively clean. Jason has good technique overall, but apparently an obvious edge issue on his Lutz that probably isn't called. I think it's more egregious when guys have a number of poor technique issues like pre-rotation, under-rotated landings, poor edges and poor toe tap on quads which aren't called.