Who is this skater with the highest BV are you referring to? I'm confused.
I can't tell you how many people laugh at figure skating "not being a real sport" because it's all based on "corrupt judges". That's the average person's opinion of figure skating.
I think if you told the average person that "this is a sport, but the skater who did weaker spins and fewer jumps should win because she is caressing her face during her program" would make that person think the sport is a farce.
All this talk about the "average person" thinking this, thinking that. Let me just say this.
Most of the reactions around me seemed to be "Yeah I saw it, it was nice :yes: but the the seats were so empty haha" So...yeah. Alot people watch it without really caring about it tbh, they watch it cause its the Olympics and everyone on TV was talking about it, and at the end of the day 95% of the average viewers I know didn't even realize that there was a judging controversy, while the other 5% forgot about it in 1-2 days cause hockey was on.
I think you guys are overestimating the attention span/interest of an average viewer.
*Also the "average american" didn't really care about the results because there was no american on the podium, so I think nationalism plays a big part in the popularity of FS here.
See the Pre-Rotation Questions thread in the Figure Skating References section of this forum.
A degree of prerotation is necessary on all jumps.
Actually, the main thing they have access to is front-row seats to the actual live performance.
Primarily, they're judging what they see with their own eyes in real time.
Only if a jump looks questionable in real time will the technical panel go back and review the video for underrotations and wrong edges. As noted above, they are not allowed to use slow motion to look for prerotation.
Oh, I think if you took any two performances, a group of fans with an agenda to "prove" that one skater deserved higher scores and the other deserved lower could find and invent a similar number of "mistakes" in the technical calls.
Judges are just giving GOEs and PCS. For most elements there can be two or more "correct" GOEs according each judge's assessment, depending how they balance the strong and weak aspects of the element.
There's no "correct" score for any of the program components. There are ranges of numbers the judges are supposed to use depending what they each consider to be average, above-average, good, very good, excellent, outstanding. But they each have to come to their own determinations of whether a performance was closer to very good, for example, on the criteria for each component than it was excellent or just good. Other judges and fans may honestly disagree. And all may be unconsciously influenced by expectations, personal preferences, and the level of excitement the skater generates in the live performance.
8 triples, one was a 3A. Still second highest TES with some questionable downgrade. sorry, I couldn't resist.
Under 6.0, the skaters were more or less ranked according to some combination of not only their abilities, but also backroom politicking. Federation trade-offs, bribery, what have you. Of course, the skater had to be good enough and deliver, but when two skaters are equal, who wins? Or even if skater 2 is slightly weaker than skater 1, can conspirators flip placements at the margins?
-----
Fast forward to 2002 ... what did the ISU and the figure skating community do when the 2002 cheating scandal reached critical mass and was revealed? Did it clean up the system and embrace fair play? Did it foster a sport that anyone can watch and enjoy because they can see with their own eyes who does the best and deserves to win on that particular day?
Or did the ISU and the federations intentionally create an inexplicable scoring system meant to confuse the audience back into passive submission? Did they not create a scoring system they labeled as more objective, but its real aim was to allow the cheaters to get back ahead of the game?
The point in mentioning it is that the claim is that Adelina jumped really high for them is inaccurate -- or at least, if she did, then so did Yuna.
So you mean they're inputting GOE values as the skaters are doing their elements? What are they doing after the performance then?
Does it take 3-5 minutes to decide on the components scores?
Or I don't know if what you mean is that the judges are busy taking notes during the performance (i.e. "this jump looks clean, that jump may have been underrotated, this spin was good", etc.) and post-performance they're double-checking questionable elements and double-checking their GOEs and stuff. So say 70% of the GOEs will already be given out during the performance and then the time after the performance is to check the more borderline elements.
If the judges are judging primarily (or as a first pass) with their eyes, then I'm a bit more confused on why they didn't pick up on Adelina's flutz in the LP. I thought it might have been because of the camera angle -- for us viewers at home, the camera was pretty much side-on so it wasn't that obvious that she took off from the wrong edge. But looking at a fan cam of the performance, when she jumped she was moving directly away from where the judges were sitting, so they should have been able to see her wrong edge clearly. So why didn't they? Seems kind of odd to me.
2. If deceptive viewing angles are so persuasive and significant, then should we revisit dismissing the nationality of the replay operator so quickly? I thought people said all he does is select the videos from the cameras when the judges and technical panel review elements, so he wouldn't have much influence over the score. But if he's able to select viewing angles that "hide" certain aspects (such as edges) when the judges review the replays, then maybe it indicates a fault with the way the system is set up and his potential role in affecting scores shouldn't be discounted so quickly.
Additionally, I'm not sure if the viewing angle is something that the rest of us can control. Sure the ISU has video from all sorts of directions,
4. I assume when possible the actual rules should be referred to, and that there will be people who know what the correct interpretations are, should people give incorrect interpretations. For example, how much under-rotation is allowed on a landing is explicitly given in the scoring guidelines, including that the skater gets the benefit of the doubt (which covers things like if fans start arguing it was actually 92 degrees under-rotated and thus should have been flagged, etc. -- it should be clearly under-rotated).
Therefore that should be used to judge whether or not jump landings were under-rotated. For pre-rotation, it only says if it's a "clear forward" take off, which is not a clearly defined metric. However, people in the pre-rotation thread have said this is interpreted as 1) the edge foot should still be moving (or skidding) in the same direction, backward for non-axel, when it leaves the ice, essentially a quarter turn margin 2) the toe pick foot should not have rotated more than 180 degrees prior to leaving the ice, i.e. should never be facing directly forward, essentially a half turn margin. Unless someone else says otherwise, then I (and I assume other casual forum-goers) will take this as how the rule is interpreted.
Once again though it comes down to whether or not fans can construct a persuasive argument. A fan could say that a skater should have only gotten a 2 on some PCS score but I doubt anyone would take him seriously.
Note that what I'm saying is no different than what (I believe) judges should be doing anyway. Essentially we should be replicating their process, with more in-depth investigation (such as slow motion replay) and explanation, to be taken seriously. And in doing so I don't think the scores would actually vary by that much, as long as each forum poster is actually willing to look at the evidence.
The ladies rules, post 2010, deliberately favor skaters other than YuNa. The base value points for a triple axel and for doing a 3 jump combo with a half loop as the second jump were increased. Neither of these skills were part of Kim's repetoire. On the other side, three double axels, something Kim used, were no longer allowed.
See the Pre-Rotation Questions thread in the Figure Skating References section of this forum.
A degree of prerotation is necessary on all jumps.
Here's what the Technical Panel Handbook has to say about prerotation:
Actually, the main thing they have access to is front-row seats to the actual live performance.
Primarily, they're judging what they see with their own eyes in real time.
Only if a jump looks questionable in real time will the technical panel go back and review the video for underrotations and wrong edges. As noted above, they are not allowed to use slow motion to look for prerotation.
The judges would check video for even fewer jumps than the technical panel. Maybe some judges are more likely than others to check video to confirm what they saw in real time, or to second guess the technical panel calls that show up in their computers after the tech panel reviews. For many the main priority after the end of the live performance would be inputting program component scores.
Oh, I think if you took any two performances, a group of fans with an agenda to "prove" that one skater deserved higher scores and the other deserved lower could find and invent a similar number of "mistakes" in the technical calls.
That number would include not only
-real mistakes by the technical panel
-"correct" calls according to the rules by technical panel due to deceptive viewing angles
but also
-borderline calls where the technical panel follows the rules in giving benefit of the doubt to the skater for whom the biased fans intentionally choose the harsher interpretation (and vice versa for the fan-favored skater)
-borderline calls where the viewing angle and video resolution make a significant difference, so the fans were relying on deceptive video
-incorrect interpretations of the rules by the fans
Judges are just giving GOEs and PCS. For most elements there can be two or more "correct" GOEs according each judge's assessment, depending how they balance the strong and weak aspects of the element.
There's no "correct" score for any of the program components. There are ranges of numbers the judges are supposed to use depending what they each consider to be average, above-average, good, very good, excellent, outstanding. But they each have to come to their own determinations of whether a performance was closer to very good, for example, on the criteria for each component than it was excellent or just good. Other judges and fans may honestly disagree. And all may be unconsciously influenced by expectations, personal preferences, and the level of excitement the skater generates in the live performance.
According to Tatiana Tarasova, Sotnikova's freeskate "shows how people are torn between the classic and modern dance. Everything goes, in general, from the classics, but in my heart there is a break, and one half of a person is drawn to classical art, the other is already seized plasticity of modern times. As two different directions coexist in man as he tries to combine them, and in the end it turns out that happiness, because it turns out to be possible and then, and more ... New Life joins the old. "
But there's no requirement for a competitive figure skating program to have a theme. That's one consideration among many under the Choreography component.
Me too!!! Personally I don't think there are rules which are specifically targeted against any skaters at all. Allowing 3A in the ladies' short program is just a move to encourage ladies go for more difficult jumps.@gkelly @dorrispulaski @Mathman
Thank you for your insight. It's much appreciated :yes:
It was sort of incomprehensible to the casual viewer already. How many people knew how the ordinal rankings worked, really? Though CoP definitely made it easier to screw over worthy skaters through manipulation of GOE and PCS (Adelina's victory was basically a victory obtained through the judges' GOE). The other problem with CoP was that it encourages skaters to simply pack in as much difficulty as possible = harder to skate clean.Granted, IJS certainly didn't help things, because it's become incomprehensible to the casual viewer--some made an effort to learn it, but many people I spoke to just gave up. There's also the difficulty of balancing innovation with clean programs. The past quad with two Worlds and one Olympics won by only triple jumps and this quad with two Worlds and one Olympics won by a guy with falls... neither of these things make the sport look very good. I wouldn't say 6.0 is the "fairer" system, but it is simpler, easier to understand, and encourages victories through performance rather than victories through math.
The funny part is that a 3Lz-3T (6.0+4.1=10.1) is still worth more than a 3A-2T (8.5+1.3=9.8). All the rule changes that are supposedly for the sole benefit of Mao Asada, and the ISU couldn't even fix that.(BTW, I don't see the rule changes as a way to screw over Yuna. Why shouldn't the triple axel be well rewarded and encouraged? That Mao is the only one who throws it down should add to the 3A's value and be in her benefit. If she is better than any other lady when she skates clean, she should be rewarded. She shouldn't be held down by rules to make way for Queen Yuna. It's unfair that Yuna's 3-3 was worth more than Mao's 3A-2T, imo.)