I think you misunderstood me. I am trying to see the argument that the besting her non jump element compensated for her failed 3 triple jumps is good enough compensation for her getting the high PCS she has been getting. That is why I wonder if judge is judged on what she ought to getting versus how a faulty performance should deserve. Otherwise those who are best known for their non jumping elements like spins and foot work should have scored higher given they were at least successful in completing more jumps.
....I really have no idea what you're trying to say here.
I have replayed back on the level 4 footwork sequences from both competitions, and counted the turns, the pace the details, they are very similar, no extra turns or movements, so I am still wondering what is the difference. I have already accepted PCS is the major reason of her high scoring, but I also noted some discrepancy in her TES score like certain level 4s when the movements and execution are the same on both competitions.
I am not a tech specialist, and frankly, I neither have the time nor inclination to re-watch, compare and write out all the differences on Mao's step sequences across both competitions. Also, you should keep in mind that it is not only the NUMBER of turns that matter here, but also their EXECUTION/PRECISION. I think you should read mskater93's excellent post on this matter:
Step sequence leveling is based on checking off criteria to get the features to get to the specific level. The likely difference between NHK and CoR (and the cause of your perception that it was tentative) was clarity in the variety of turns. To get a level 4, you need complex variety of turns (basically all types in both CW and CCW directions: three, bracket, twizzle, loop, counter, rocker) versus variety (at least 5 different types in both direction of turns for L3) versus simple variety (4). There was probably 1 or 2 turns at NHK that were, in the opinion of the tech panel, indeterminant which dropped her level to 3. She probably was more precise in her turns at CoR. I would need to look at the step sequence at each competition back to back to give you the exact cause of the improvement in level. I know some skaters at Regionals and Sectionals who got their step sequences called L1 because some turns were imprecise which dropped them below 4 different types of turns (basically counters and rockers were more 3 turns than what they were intended which dropped the variety).
And to be honest, I have no idea why you're making such a big deal about this matter. It's not like Mao is the only skater to receive different level calls across different competitions. Off the top of my head: Daisuke received a level 3 on his SP steps at Skate Canada, but a level 4 at NHK. Alissa Czisny received a level 3 in her LP steps at Skate America, but a level 2 at TEB. Alena Leonova received a level 3 on her SP steps at NHK, but a level 4 at Cup of Russia. And I'm sure there are many more examples that I've forgotten in my mind. Levels are not necessarily set in stone all season--part of it depends on the execution of the element itself, and/or the strictness of the tech caller. Sometimes a skater misses a rotation in a spin, or fudges a turn or two in the step sequence. It may not be quite noticeable to the naked eye as us fans who watch the pixellated videos on Youtube, but I'm pretty sure the trained tech callers are watching the elements on a much higher quality video feed. Or maybe, a tech caller is more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the skaters in a particular competition. What it is not, however, is proof that there is some sort of conspiracy involving a national federation and the ISU favoring a certain skater above all others.
On paper Mao does have superior technical ability, but it was not fully realized at her 2 competitions performances even taking the easier jump layout and failing 50% of her triple jumps.
You completely missed the point in my last post. I know Mao botched her jumps, but what I was trying to get at is that
technical ability is not just limited to jumps only. Mao has--and demonstrated--better steps, spins, spirals and skating skills than Alena. Shouldn't these factors matter as well? And to be honest, a lot of it didn't matter anyway! Alena still beat Mao quite soundly on TES because Mao failed 50% of her triple jumps. I'm not sure why you're complaining here.
IMO, Alena actually exceeded her capability and sold out the heck out of the craptastic choreography and take it beyond a pantomime. I do however think she was over marked, but given it is Cup of Russia why is it a surprise? Actually that shows the advantage of both getting NHK and COR, so they have a pacemaker that justify the bench marking and relative marking even if both are overmarked.
Well, I disagree. You speak as if Alena had the skate of her life in her LP, skating lights-out throughout the whole thing. Did you watch the competition? Alena had several major mistakes as well, including a disruptive fall on her 2A. Moreover, although I agree that Alena sold the heck out of her crap choreography in the SP, I completely disagree regarding her LP. For the majority of Alena's LP, she was just skating up and down the rink with a solemn look on her face, not really coming alive or demonstrating any sort of superior expression until arguably the ending step sequence. This is hardly taking her choreography beyond a pantomime. I actually think Mao had the better expression and interpretation in the LP than Alena--despite those mistakes on her jumps, Mao maintained a high performance level through the entire program, though I cannot quite say the same for Alena, whose performance felt a bit flat to me until the last step sequence.
There is versatility behind that sweet, innocent smile.
