Chen vs. Wagner Judging

[IonGrey]

This is reposted from the Ladies FS thread, where I think my posts got lost in the flood of reactions post-results.

So we all know that Chen eeked bronze just ahead of Wagner (2.43 points), so I thought it might be worth investigating to see if there is any suspicious judging. Now normally I wouldnt do this kind of analysis but seeing as this is for the 3rd Olympic berth its possible that there might be some foul play.

In order to be as impartial as possible, I'll ignore the component scores because they are highly subjective. However it is worth noting that Chen won every single category in PCS except for SS in the FP, which Wagner won by .04 points. Overall Chen beat Wagner by 2.44 pts in PCS, which is already equal to her victory margin. If the judging had gone the other way, we could be seeing Wagner instead of Chen right now.

So, let's talk technical. There are 3 categories to consider.

Step Sequences

Both Wagner and Chen received L3 in both SP and LP. In what is going to become a recurring theme, Chen scores ever slightly higher than Wagner does, every single time.

StSq in SP: Chen +0.14
StSq in LP: Chen +0.08
ChSq in LP: Chen +0.6

The conclusion is that this is a bit suspicious, but that there is no real evidence that the judges specifically chose to inflate Chen's GOE or deflate Wagner's GOE. Its possible that the judges simply liked Chen's sequences better.

Spins

The long story short is that despite exceeding or equalling Chen's levels on every spin, Wagner still lower scores than Chen on every single spin.

Short Program

I'm going to list Wagner's spin first, then Chen's spin, then the margin by which Chen outscored Wagner.

Flying Spin: L4 Sit vs. L3 Camel: Chen +0.02
Change-foot Spin: L4 Combo vs. L3 Combo: Chen +0.14
Layback Spin: L4 vs. L4: Chen +0.86

Long Program

Flying Spin: L3 Change-foot Combo vs. L3 Change-foot Combo: Chen +0.14
Change-foot Spin: L4 Combo vs. L4 Combo: Chen +0.79
Misc. Spin: L4 Flying Sit vs. L4 Layback: Chen +0.27

In these spins, Wagner's base values are 1 pt higher than Chen's base values. However, due to higher GOE, Chen received the higher marks for her spins (+2.22). This means that Chen's GOEs are 3+ points higher than Wagner's. While one can argue that Chen's technique is better (its true that her spins are faster and tighter) there are still several suspicious marks which I call attention to:

1. Layback Spin, Short Program: Chen's GOE was almost 1 point higher than Wagner's. I dont care how fast you're spinning, the gap separating their GOEs is ridiculous.

2. Changefoot Spin, Free Program: Similar situation here with another ridiculously high GOE for Chen.

3. Changefoot Spin, Short Program: Despite Wagner's spin receiving a higher level (which is a .5 base value advantage), Chen received a higher mark for her L3 spin than for Wagner's L4 spin.

Based on these marks, I think the picture is emerging that Chen's marks were at least slightly inflated.

Jumps

This is the biggest part of the technical marks, and the biggest disparity in scores is also revealed here. For the sake of conserving space, I'll only list the jumps that I felt were judged unfairly towards Chen.

Short Program

Triple triple: Wagner did 3F3T<, Chen did 3Lz3T<. While Wagner received -1.9 GOE, Chen only got -1.4 GOE. Why? Both were underrotated, and I dont see a reason why Chen's underrotation was better than Wagners.

Long Program

Triple Triple: Wagner did 3F3T, Chen did 3Lz3T<. Wagner only received +0.70 GOE, Chen got away with a -0.50 GOE. I don't think I need to explain this any more; Wagner should have gotten at least +1, Chen should have gotten at least -1.

Lutz: Both underrotated. However, Wagner had -1.6 GOE, Chen had -0.70 GOE.

tl;dr Chen's underrotations were penalized much less severely than Wagners.

So in conclusion, I think Chen should have been scored 2-3 pts lower and Wagner 2-3 pts higher. I think this difference is more than just subjective opinions that come with judging in figure skating. Although I respect both for being amazing, talented skaters, I think there was something suspiciously off with the judging tonight.

So, what do you guys think? Who do you think deserved 3rd, Wagner or Chen?

 

[TCAngel18]

I have been arguing the case of the PCS battle in the Nationals threads, but I think the above is a case for questioning the TES, as well, Karen gets height on her jumps, but that is only one feature when it comes to GOE.

Before it would have been a clear case that Karen was the superior spinner, an she is still better, but Ashley has closed the gap considerably with better spin choices.

Step sequences are a wash, IMO.
Looking at my PCS arguments, and the above TES argument, I would easily place Ashley in 3rd.

 

[Ruffles78]

This is reposted from the Ladies FS thread, where I think my posts got lost in the flood of reactions post-results.

So we all know that Chen eeked bronze just ahead of Wagner (2.43 points), so I thought it might be worth investigating to see if there is any suspicious judging. Now normally I wouldnt do this kind of analysis but seeing as this is for the 3rd Olympic berth its possible that there might be some foul play.

In order to be as impartial as possible, I'll ignore the component scores because they are highly subjective. However it is worth noting that Chen won every single category in PCS except for SS in the FP, which Wagner won by .04 points. Overall Chen beat Wagner by 2.44 pts in PCS, which is already equal to her victory margin. If the judging had gone the other way, we could be seeing Wagner instead of Chen right now.

So, let's talk technical. There are 3 categories to consider.

Step Sequences

Both Wagner and Chen received L3 in both SP and LP. In what is going to become a recurring theme, Chen scores ever slightly higher than Wagner does, every single time.

StSq in SP: Chen +0.14
StSq in LP: Chen +0.08
ChSq in LP: Chen +0.6

The conclusion is that this is a bit suspicious, but that there is no real evidence that the judges specifically chose to inflate Chen's GOE or deflate Wagner's GOE. Its possible that the judges simply liked Chen's sequences better.

Spins

The long story short is that despite exceeding or equalling Chen's levels on every spin, Wagner still lower scores than Chen on every single spin.

Short Program

I'm going to list Wagner's spin first, then Chen's spin, then the margin by which Chen outscored Wagner.

Flying Spin: L4 Sit vs. L3 Camel: Chen +0.02
Change-foot Spin: L4 Combo vs. L3 Combo: Chen +0.14
Layback Spin: L4 vs. L4: Chen +0.86

Long Program

Flying Spin: L3 Change-foot Combo vs. L3 Change-foot Combo: Chen +0.14
Change-foot Spin: L4 Combo vs. L4 Combo: Chen +0.79
Misc. Spin: L4 Flying Sit vs. L4 Layback: Chen +0.27

In these spins, Wagner's base values are 1 pt higher than Chen's base values. However, due to higher GOE, Chen received the higher marks for her spins (+2.22). This means that Chen's GOEs are 3+ points higher than Wagner's. While one can argue that Chen's technique is better (its true that her spins are faster and tighter) there are still several suspicious marks which I call attention to:

1. Layback Spin, Short Program: Chen's GOE was almost 1 point higher than Wagner's. I dont care how fast you're spinning, the gap separating their GOEs is ridiculous.

2. Changefoot Spin, Free Program: Similar situation here with another ridiculously high GOE for Chen.

3. Changefoot Spin, Short Program: Despite Wagner's spin receiving a higher level (which is a .5 base value advantage), Chen received a higher mark for her L3 spin than for Wagner's L4 spin.

Based on these marks, I think the picture is emerging that Chen's marks were at least slightly inflated.

Jumps

This is the biggest part of the technical marks, and the biggest disparity in scores is also revealed here. For the sake of conserving space, I'll only list the jumps that I felt were judged unfairly towards Chen.

Short Program

Triple triple: Wagner did 3F3T<, Chen did 3Lz3T<. While Wagner received -1.9 GOE, Chen only got -1.4 GOE. Why? Both were underrotated, and I dont see a reason why Chen's underrotation was better than Wagners.

Long Program

Triple Triple: Wagner did 3F3T, Chen did 3Lz3T<. Wagner only received +0.70 GOE, Chen got away with a -0.50 GOE. I don't think I need to explain this any more; Wagner should have gotten at least +1, Chen should have gotten at least -1.

Lutz: Both underrotated. However, Wagner had -1.6 GOE, Chen had -0.70 GOE.

tl;dr Chen's underrotations were penalized much less severely than Wagners.

So in conclusion, I think Chen should have been scored 2-3 pts lower and Wagner 2-3 pts higher. I think this difference is more than just subjective opinions that come with judging in figure skating. Although I respect both for being amazing, talented skaters, I think there was something suspiciously off with the judging tonight.

So, what do you guys think? Who do you think deserved 3rd, Wagner or Chen?

Chen, clearly the better spinner.

Wagner's combo in the short and the lutz in the long were two-footed, Chen's weren't.Those were cleaner and more impressive jumping passes for Chen even with the <. I did think Wagner was hosed somewhat in PCS, and I think her long program was beautiful and more sophisticated than Chen's...but I watched in person, very close to the ice. There was not a doubt in my mind that Chen deserved the bronze, and I really enjoyed Wagner a lot.

 

[burntBREAD]

I really don’t think the technical side is a strong case for Wagner in comparison to Chen. YES, Karen is THAT much of a better spinner than Ashley - it’s not just speed here. It’s superior speed, centering, flexibility, and positions as well - Karen’s received close to if not full +3s for her laybacks multiple times internationally, whereas Ashley’s layback is at best a decent +1. Why wouldn’t they be a point apart if they’re spinning as usual? Karen also has better skating skills than Ashley, so the actual footwork is better. I give Ashley credit for selling the absolute hell out of everything, but in terms of edge cleanliness and skating skills, again Karen has the edge.

 

[VIETgrlTerifa]

Karen deserved third, no question. Ashley finally got the SS and transitions scores closer to what she put out.

 

[IonGrey]

This post first came up in the FS thread; I will respond to it in this thread.

Did you actually watch the performances, or did you just read the protocols? I ask because your examples don't show any judging bias favoring Chen at all if you actually watch and compare what Chen and Wagner put on the ice. For example:

Chen's 3Lz-3T< deserved higher marks than Wagner's 3F-3T< because: (1) Chen's 3Lz had much better height and distance than Wagner's 3F, and (2) Wagner had a slight 2-foot on her 3T<, while Chen did not.

I was not there in person, but I watched the replays on Youtube. I am relatively new to watching the sport so my judgement of height and distance is not great. So, for your comment about the 3-3s for SP i went back and watched everything again, multiple times, just to make sure I wasnt missing anything.

For Karen's 3-3, I agree with you that the 3Lz was prety much textbook in terms of height, distance.

For Wagner's 3F, this is the video I watched (other videos give a similar angle): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVPwOEd1iR8&t=69s

You will notice that the cameraman is right behind Wagner, so it's much harder to judge distance for her 3F. In terms of height, I did not feel that Karen was in the air for mcuh longer than Wagner, so no real difference there.

Your point about the 2-foot is absolutely correct though. Maybe my first example was not the best; what do you think about the disparity in GOEs for the other jumps?

 

[Blades of Passion]

Layback Spin, Short Program: Chen's GOE was almost 1 point higher than Wagner's. I don't care how fast you're spinning, the gap separating their GOEs is ridiculous.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. This is exactly the gap there should be for an amazing element vs a mediocre element, an even larger gap actually.

There is nothing "suspicious" about Chen getting slightly higher scores on her footwork either, especially the very deserved gap on the ChSq.

tl;dr Chen's underrotations were penalized much less severely than Wagners.

No, it's the opposite. Chen got underrotation calls for multiple jumps that shouldn't have been called, whereas Wagner got credit for her questionable 3-3 in the LP. Chen was also given the harshest edge call on her Flip, while Ashley's Lutz was not. The tech panel did everything they could to hold Chen down, while giving Wagner benefit of the doubt.

 

[Shayuki]

No, it's the opposite. Chen got underrotation calls for multiple jumps that shouldn't have been called, whereas Wagner got credit for her questionable 3-3 in the LP. Chen was also given the harshest edge call on her Flip, while Ashley's Lutz was not. The tech panel did everything they could to hold Chen down, while giving Wagner benefit of the doubt.

My thoughts exactly. Chen got called on everything that's possible to get called whereas Wagner really got the benefit of doubt on most of her elements. I really don't see how a Chen-Wagner comparison could possibly come to the conclusion that Wagner's URs were more harsh - It in my opinion was the complete opposite. Karen Chen's TES went into a complete freefall after that program, which is very harsh.

 

[readernick]

My thoughts exactly. Chen got called on everything that's possible to get called whereas Wagner really got the benefit of doubt on most of her elements. I really don't see how a Chen-Wagner comparison could possibly come to the conclusion that Wagner's URs were more harsh - It in my opinion was the complete opposite. Karen Chen's TES went into a complete freefall after that program, which is very harsh.

So, I don't think the calls were wrong. Jacky Wong calls under-rotations as he sees them and he is very unbiased. He only noted one under-rotation for Ashley which was called as the program progressed and he noticed many many UR for Karen. She has been practicing that way all week and she gets these calls in international competition too. It was fair
I don't really object to the GOE on most of these elements. Maybe the step sequence in the long. I thought Wagner brought that. I do however object to the judges giving Wagner such low PCS in comparison to the other girls.

 

[Procrastinator]

OP, I think some of your skepticism comes from your not yet fully understanding the judging system.

The GOE is an average of the different marks by the judges. So, a -1.4 means Chen got -2 across the board, while a -1.9 means Wagner got mostly -2 and maybe two -3s. So, even though you look at the absolute number and feel suspicious, the breakdown shows that there's quite some consistency for similar errors, with a little aberration due to subjectivity / different angles.

If you look at the protocols, it's hard to say that the judges were particularly lenient with Chen, especially in the free.

My issue is more that the judges suddenly became sticklers for skating skills and transitions with Ashley out of nowhere. I'm not saying it's undeserved in a vacuum, but in the context of several seasons of domestic and international competition, where skaters and coaches rely on protocols to determine what it is that they are to work on, it is not entirely fair to start dinging a skater for holistic deficiencies that you have ignored for most of the skater's career.

Internationally, there is no indication that the judges would start giving Ashley 7-range scores for SS and TR.

Either way, it would be a close call between Chen and Wagner. I wish one of them had nailed everything and won by a 5-7 point margin, so we'd be spared all the internet harassment and fighting that I'm sure will now ensue.

Don't know whether USFS will pick Wagner again, but I will be avoiding the internet for months if they do. To favor her: she won world silver with two clean performances, whereas Chen's 4th place last year was with two flawed programs (has she ever skated two clean programs?), they know Ashley has a tendency to deliver internationally while collapsing at nationals, and they might want a media-friendly and experienced olympian on the team to counteract the lack of star power from Nagasu and Tennell. Either way, Karen is unlikely to surpass either Nagasu or Tennell in Korea if they all skate similarly to last night. I understand people don't like Ashley's attitude / performance style, but I still think picking her would result in a more well-rounded team to showcase in front of the world at the olympics. She's also the only American with a chance of getting 34+ PCS in the SP and 70+ in the FS. It's not all about merit and technical ability, something this sport has repeatedly taught us.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Jackie Wong is constantly wrong on this subject, that's not something worth quoting. A coupe of Karen's jumps that got called were not perfectly backwards and yes it was even noticeable, but that doesn't mean they were so short as to deserve a call. Those landings were within the rules.

 

[Procrastinator]

Jackie Wong is constantly wrong on this subject, that's not something worth quoting. A coupe of Karen's jumps that got called were not perfectly backwards and yes it was even noticeable, but that doesn't mean they were so short as to deserve a call. Those landings were within the rules.

Which called jump do you think was incorrectly called?

 

[Blades of Passion]

Which called jump do you think was incorrectly called?

Flip and Lutz were both rotated, also Flip edge should not have been given an 'e'.

 

[medoroa]

Sorry, I'm another one saying Chen deserved her TES and more. Her last spin was exquisite, wonderful layback and catch-foot positions with great speed and centering although I believe she did many more turns than Wagner, her spirals were gorgeous and her ChSq deserved more like +1 over Wagner, her speed going into her jumps was superior, the height on her jumps was superior, and how Wagner didn't get called on the Lutz is a mystery to me. Granted I don't have the tech panel's camera, but it looked like a flat! And also, two-footed.

Although as a program, I liked Wagner's FS more. I thought it had better interpretation and performance. Should that have saved her? Personally, I don't think so and agree with the placements though not with the marks.

 

[readernick]

Flip and Lutz were both rotated, also Flip edge should not have been given an 'e'.

Well, international panels agree about the Flip edge. Go and look at Karen's protocols from this year. She always gets called.

 

[readernick]

International panels also constantly call many of her jumps under-rotated, not just the final 3T. I trust those international panels / rockerskating's expertise over you. It is true that Rockerskating is a bit strict about under-rotations but he is right 90 percent of the time. When the under-rotations he calls aren't called by the judges there is usually an outcry like with Jason Brown's axel during the free skate.

 

[Shayuki]

Well, international panels agree about the Flip edge. Go and look at Karen's protocols from this year. She always gets called.

I really don't think e is possible there, even though the angle's bad. The blade's too inside towards the end of the take off and she doesn't shift it enough for it to have been e before. It should be !.

International panels also constantly call many of her jumps under-rotated, not just the final 3T. I trust those international panels / rockerskating's expertise over you. It is true that Rockerskating is a bit strict about under-rotations but he is right 90 percent of the time. When the under-rotations he calls aren't called by the judges there is usually an outcry like with Jason Brown's axel during the free skate.

I mean, here we have the argument of "I trust in what everyone else says(in different competitions)" vs "I look at these with my own eyes". Experts can be wrong, too. That's why it's good to check for yourself.

 

[Procrastinator]

Flip and Lutz were both rotated, also Flip edge should not have been given an 'e'.

I can see why the lutz was called. The flip looks okay, but maybe the panel had a different angle. Can't speak to the edge call, though, as I still have trouble discerning them on flips.

That said, watching her jumps in slo-mo right now, she has a tendency to prerotate in the very, very last instant before take-off, which maybe complicates the analysis. Given how long her score took, I think the panel really did agonize over it.

 

[readernick]

I really don't think e is possible there, even though the angle's bad. The blade's too inside towards the end of the take off and she doesn't shift it enough for it to have been e before. It should be !.


I mean, here we have the argument of "I trust in what everyone else says(in different competitions)" vs "I look at these with my own eyes". Experts can be wrong, too. That's why it's good to check for yourself.

Sorry, my statement came off much harsh. I did not mean to insult you. I see with my own eyes some of the under-rotations and when I am unable to see the jump rotation clearly myself I trust the experts in the room over my own analysis/someone else not in the room due to limits in the cameras available.. I did not express that thought well

 

[Blades of Passion]

She doesn't always get called (look at 2017 Worlds) and this competition was not those competitions you cite. She was concentrating very hard on that edge going into the jump and I could see the effort on keeping it more to the inside, there wasn't a blatant press to the outside.