I always THOUGHT Kati won the silver from 10th, but a couple of years ago on this board someone corrected me on that and when I did the math on it, it turned out she couldn't have been in 10th based on her place points after the short compared to others. I wish I had my "archive" available for that year so I could check it again.
CoP scoring versus 6.0 at 2007 Worlds
- Thread starter Mathman
- Start date
I always THOUGHT Kati won the silver from 10th, but a couple of years ago on this board someone corrected me on that and when I did the math on it, it turned out she couldn't have been in 10th based on her place points after the short compared to others. I wish I had my "archive" available for that year so I could check it again.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
So what? What if there were still another intermediat Skate (SP, IP, LP) then the scores would be higher and several people will skate better in the IP than they did in the SP. So why then would we need an LP?
I want a solid reason for justifying the need for an SP. Prefer and Official one.
Joe
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
I actually agree with this, but it could have been instituted in 6.0 just as easily.
Remember, factored placements (or whatever they called the system from 81 till 2004) was a remnant of having figures and it lasted even after figures had been (quite wrongly!) eliminated from competition.
Again, I'll capitalize because I don't think people realize the principle is:
INNOVATIONS TEND TO LAST LONGER THAN THE SITUATIONS THAT LED TO THEM (that is, an innovation in scoring might be introduced for a specific reason, nonetheless it will endure even if the reason for its introduction disappears) again, all caps
AN INNOVATION IN SCORING MIGHT BE INTRODUCED FOR A SPECIFIC REASON, NONETHELESS, IT WILL ENDURE EVEN IF THE REASON FOR ITS INTRODUCTION DISAPPEARS!!!
Factored placements were introduced because figures and free-skating (SP and LP) were scored very differently. That is, the margin between placements in figures was larger than that between placements in free-skating. Even when figures were reduced to %30 percent of the competition (1973-80) they actually counted for about half the total score. A figure specialist could still build up a substantial lead against good free-skaters.
Therefore, factored placements made sense at the time (and they worked, no figure specialist won worlds after 1980 with the possible exception of Fadeev who did have his free-skating moments and Scott Hamilton, though his relatively poor free skating in Sarajevo was supposed to be because he was sick).
Anyhoo, after figures were (quite wrongly!) junked, there was no rational need for factored placements and total points earned coudl/should have made a comeback. But they didn't because (all together now):
AN INNOVATION IN SCORING MIGHT BE INTRODUCED FOR A SPECIFIC REASON, NONETHELESS, IT WILL ENDURE EVEN IF THE REASON FOR ITS INTRODUCTION DISAPPEARS!!!
COP wasn't needed to correct the scoring, movingup/down possibilities of 6.0, it could have been done sooner. That is wasn't is a monument to inertia more than anything else.
Under the CoP, would Michelle Kwan and Chen Lu have tied in 1996?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Can you explain this a little more? Isn't that exactly what the CoP does -- gets rid of factored placements (in fact, gets rid of placements altogether), and gives the crown to the highest total points earned?
How could this have been done under 6.0 (ordinal) judging? Do you mean that they could have added up the 5.6s and the 5.7s over both the short and the long programs?
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
I'm not exactly sure how they did it before 1981, but total points (or margins) were more important than ordinals per se. At any rate, they could have done what they did with the SP and LP in the years 73-80.
You can crunch the raw numbers for the 76 and 80 olympics at:
http://winter-olympic-memories.com/index.htm
You might just look at how pairs were scored in 76 and 80 (maybe 72?) or look at the singles disregarding figures.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Awesome site!
OK, I looked at the men's singles from 1976. Disregarding figures, yes, they basically just added the 5.6's, etc., with a weighting factor. (2/7 for SP and 5/7 for LP, leaving figures out.)
They did the same thing for figures. At first look, figures seem to be weighted only as heavily as the SP, but this is a little misleading because the three figures scores added up to a little more than the two scores for the SP. So it looks like they were aiming at 30% figures, 20% SP and 50% LP.
They also computed ordinals for each stage separately and all together.
Once this was done, though, there is still something mysterious going on in the determination of the final results. For instance, Sergei Volkov (USSR) and David Santee (USA) were fifth and sixth. In total points, Santee won, 184.28 to 184.08. In placements, Santee won, 49 to 53 (lowest is best). In factored placements (30%, 20%, 50%), Santee won, 5.3 to 5.8 (lowest is best).
But Volkov got fifth place and Santee sixth. :scratch:
So there must have been some mechanism for giving more weight to figures than can be determined from these numbers. Volkov was #1 in figures, #5 in SP and #9 in LP.
BTW, in terms of point totals, John Curry was the clear winner with 192.74 points. But the race for silver was a nailbiter: Vladimir Kovalev 187.64, Toller Cranston 187.38, Jan Hoffmann 187.34
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
First of all, it's Takahashi.
Second of all, he didn't skate poorly at all. He made a mistake on his combination, that's all. His 3Axel and solo jump were better than Joubert's and musically his program was more difficult.
Jeff Buttle did very well too.
Joubert deserved to be ahead by about 4 points because of his Quad/Triple combination and for that reason only. Takahashi more than made up the difference in the LP.
I don't think Takahashi deserved to make up the difference. And I think messing up your combination is a pretty big mistake. Not to mention that Joubert landed a quad in the short program and Takahashi didn't.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
So Joubert's Quad combo in the SP over Takahashi's flawed 3F/3T makes up for Takahashi's superior 3Axel, superior solo jump, superior musicality, and a LP that was superior in absolutely every way in comparison to Joubert?
Okay.
Okay.
The whole point is that Takahashi didn't have a 3/3 combination in the Short program. He got a triple/double it was underrotated. In contrast, Joubert did a quad/3 combination. That right there is a major difference between the two. I'm sorry but even the women are now managing triple/triples in their short program.
Yes, Joubert had a hand down on the triple flip that hurt him a bit, but in no way, should that have evened things out between the two men. And both men had good triple axels. Going to the long program, Joubert deserved a huge lead over Takahashi...
And in the long program Joubert played it safe yes and Takahashi is the better more exciting skater, but even there Takahashi had a few baubles. And in order to beat Joubert realistically, to overcome the huge divide between the two men, he was going to need two quad jumps, something Takahashi didn't deliver. It's a sport, and the man who skated the best in both programs won. Well deserved as far as I'm concerned. The short program should count.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
I was there!
If the Roar of the Crowd were judging (and why not?) the results of the competition would be:
Takahashi
Lambiel
Verner
Berntsson
Joubert (absolutley no pizzaz and total cautiousness)
What I learned from all this, is that Takahashi needs to show that he can do it again.
Lambiel can not drift off and drift back to competitive skating. (he is the best entertainer). I hope he shows up for Euros.
Verner was on a roll and we have to keep him in mind to rolling on the podium. Euros should be a very interesting Men's Division.
Berntsson had his break through. Will he keep 'breaking' with Euros and his hometown competitions?
Joubert - Best news I heard was that he was working with Kurt. If that doesn't help, he should just stick to his quads which are among the few best in figure skating.
Joe
If the Roar of the Crowd were judging (and why not?) the results of the competition would be:
Takahashi
Lambiel
Verner
Berntsson
Joubert (absolutley no pizzaz and total cautiousness)
What I learned from all this, is that Takahashi needs to show that he can do it again.
Lambiel can not drift off and drift back to competitive skating. (he is the best entertainer). I hope he shows up for Euros.
Verner was on a roll and we have to keep him in mind to rolling on the podium. Euros should be a very interesting Men's Division.
Berntsson had his break through. Will he keep 'breaking' with Euros and his hometown competitions?
Joubert - Best news I heard was that he was working with Kurt. If that doesn't help, he should just stick to his quads which are among the few best in figure skating.
Joe
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
Brian Joubert - 80.97
4T + 3T ................. 13.52 (+ 1)
3A ................. 6.8 (+ .5)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
3F ................. 4.4 (- .5)
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CSSp4 ................. 3.0 ................. Technical Total - 42.72
Program Components - 7.75, 7.25, 7.75, 7.75, 7.75 = 38.25
Daisuke Takahashi - 76.97
3F + <3T ................. 7.72 (- .5)
3A ................. 6.8 (+ 1)
3Lz ................. 5.2 (+ 1)
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CSSp3 ................. 2.5 (+ .5)
FSSp3 ................. 2.5
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+.5) ................. Technical Total - 37.72
Program Components - 8.0, 7.5, 8.0, 7.75, 8.0 = 39.25
In comparing their combinations, Joubert deserves 7.3 more points. Which is a lot. He actually also is .5 ahead for spins too. Takahashi makes up 2.8 points on his Axel and solo jump and then another point on overall presentation...advantage Joubert by 4 points in the SP. Now the long programs:
Daisuke Takahashi - 162.67
4T ................. 8.2 ( -1.2)
3A ................. 6.8 (+ 2)
3A + 2T ................. 8.64 (+ 1)
CUSp4 ................. 3.0
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0
3F + 3T ................. 9.96x
3Lz + 2T + 2Lo ................. 9.75x
3Lo ................. 5.28x (+ 1)
3F ................. 4.84x (+ 1)
3S ................. 4.4x
FSSp3 ................. 2.5
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 2)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 82.67 (+ 1)
Program Components - 8.25, 7.5, 8.25, 7.75, 7.75 = 79.0
Brian Joubert - 151.7
4T ................. 8.2 (+ .5)
3F ................. 4.4 (+ 2)
3A ................. 6.8 (+ .5)
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .25)
3T + 3T ................. 9.0x (+ 2)
3Lo + 2T + 2T ................. 7.6x
3F + 2T ................. 6.62x (+ 1)
3Lz ................. 5.72x (+ 1)
FSSp1 ................. 1.7
SSp1 ................. 1.2 (+ .25)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
2A ................. 4.16xxx (+ .8)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 ................. Technical Total - 76.7
Program Components - 7.75, 7.25, 7.5, 7.5, 7.5 = 75.0
Takahashi did a whole lot more. Better spinning, better footwork, much better program and presentation, and even a little better on the jumps.
Overall scores:
Daisuke Takahashi - 239.64
Brian Joubert - 232.67
In my own grading, I gave Takahashi 5 points more than Joubert for presentation/artistry. Obviously this is subjective but even if you take away those 5 points and say "no, they were equal in that regard", Takahashi still comes out on top.
Good day!
