How are TT/MM's lifts level 4??

[PrincessLeppard]

For the same reason Lambiel's spins are only level 1 or 2 most of the time, and get lower GOE scores than Lysacek and Plushenko for their mediocre spins. The judging is still corrupt and this new system does nothing to prevent judges from doing whatever they want.

I love Stephane, but his spins don't meet the criteria for any higher levels. I do think this is bogus. As for lower GOEs, he does tend to travel a bit on his spins. I still think he's a fab spinner, though.

What was this thread about? Oh, pairs. I have no comment on pairs, except that I love the German pair. :yes:

 

[Doggygirl]

The alternate POV: Some posters suck up the scores and swallow them; others, like me, suck 'em up and spit 'em out.

I really do appreciate your and MM's work on the scoring but neither of you go into any creative thought as to who the judges were and whether their are similarities in thought. NOT IN CONSPIRACY OR COLLUSION but in similar ways of thinking. Such as so and so has been very ill, let's give that skater the benefit of any doubts; Asian skaters do not have the European flair (which is required?); the skater is doing exactly the style I like and I am not open to any other; That skater has had his/her time and its past, should have retired long ago; as an elitest I grew up with the concept that winning is everything and I must see to it that any skaters from my background is in the mix. Etc., etc., etc.

Joe

I know you "spit 'em out." I can't speak for MM, but for myself, I DON'T go into "creative thought" as to who the judges were, and whether there are similarities in thought.

I personally like to think (as I said before) that largely, the judges and callers are all trying to follow the rules and are doing a decent job of that. My opinion only. As a sport, I don't think it SHOULD take that much creative thought. And I don't think it DOES take a bunch of creative thought to assess the judges / callers and their opinions. IMO, creative thought is only required if one disagrees with the results. I haven't had much issue with results thus far under NJS, so I'm not sure why my creative thought is being requested. But that's only my opinion, and I am duly flattered.

DG

 

[Mathman]

I really do appreciate your and MM's work on the scoring but neither of you go into any creative thought as to who the judges were and whether their are similarities in thought. NOT IN CONSPIRACY OR COLLUSION but in similar ways of thinking. Such as so and so has been very ill, let's give that skater the benefit of any doubts; Asian skaters do not have the European flair (which is required?); the skater is doing exactly the style I like and I am not open to any other; That skater has had his/her time and its past, should have retired long ago; as an elitest I grew up with the concept that winning is everything and I must see to it that any skaters from my background is in the mix. Etc., etc., etc.

That would be a fascinating study, Joe. But IMHO it would take a really serious time commitment to undertake a research project of such scope and subtlety.

The cool thing about the CoP numbers game is that it requires only a brief glance at the protocol sheets to spot interesting trends. Psychology and sociology are much tougher nuts to crack.

MM

 

[elv]

I think TTMM lifts are very easy (but more elegant).
I would be glad if TT/MM's lifts got Level3 or Level2. Then they would continue to work doing lift's levels more higher. But now they think everything is good. If they will get level2 on OG it will be surprise for them.

 

[hockeyfan228]

He didn't *have* to learn a new jump. They could have concentrated on bringing up the difficulty on their other elements or working on their spinning. I don't think it's fair to blame the rules for his injury.

They know 3T's and 2A's. They've been doing 2A/3T and 3T sequences for years. They could not legally do this under CoP. Are you suggesting that they should skip an element and raise the levels of their other elements to make up for the missed one? That they didn't have to learn a 3T/3T sequence, a 3T/2T sequence or combo, a 2A/2T sequence or combo, etc.? That the muscle memory from years of performing specific elements would suddenly turn off without practice and that the timing change would be insignificant?

So in your opinion, have T/M's lifts called as L4 met the criteria?

I'm not sure that I would recognize the difficult entrance, but at GPF, I'm guessing they got credit for:

5TLi4: change of hand hold from two to one, he rotated during the lift, there was a one-hand hold, and a one-hand dismount. Under the 2004 description, they would have had at least two of the L3 features (difficult carry and one-arm landing), but I don't think they did a reverse direction or another feature to qualify the lift as 2004-L3.

5ALi4: I think the characteristics were the same, except with an Axel lift, there is a difficult take-off, so this lift meets L4 criteria (as written) and should have met L3 last year.

3Li4: I can't see his hands from the download, but it may have been a one-arm take-off -- with her assistance -- instead of a one-arm dismount. Because of this, I don't know if this would have qualified for L3 last year, but I suspect not.

She's not changing body position in the lifts, and they have one change of hand hold during the lifts, but these were criteria they could have skipped last year, too. In last year's LP at Moscow, their levels were 1-L2 and 2-L1.

 

[Doggygirl]

They know 3T's and 2A's. They've been doing 2A/3T and 3T sequences for years. They could not legally do this under CoP. Are you suggesting that they should skip an element and raise the levels of their other elements to make up for the missed one? That they didn't have to learn a 3T/3T sequence, a 3T/2T sequence or combo, a 2A/2T sequence or combo, etc.? That the muscle memory from years of performing specific elements would suddenly turn off without practice and that the timing change would be insignificant?

I'm not sure that I would recognize the difficult entrance, but at GPF, I'm guessing they got credit for:

5TLi4: change of hand hold from two to one, he rotated during the lift, there was a one-hand hold, and a one-hand dismount. Under the 2004 description, they would have had at least two of the L3 features (difficult carry and one-arm landing), but I don't think they did a reverse direction or another feature to qualify the lift as 2004-L3.

5ALi4: I think the characteristics were the same, except with an Axel lift, there is a difficult take-off, so this lift meets L4 criteria (as written) and should have met L3 last year.

3Li4: I can't see his hands from the download, but it may have been a one-arm take-off -- with her assistance -- instead of a one-arm dismount. Because of this, I don't know if this would have qualified for L3 last year, but I suspect not.

She's not changing body position in the lifts, and they have one change of hand hold during the lifts, but these were criteria they could have skipped last year, too. In last year's LP at Moscow, their levels were 1-L2 and 2-L1.

Thanks as always for the details Hockeyfan!!

DG

 

[soogar]

They know 3T's and 2A's. They've been doing 2A/3T and 3T sequences for years. They could not legally do this under CoP. Are you suggesting that they should skip an element and raise the levels of their other elements to make up for the missed one? That they didn't have to learn a 3T/3T sequence, a 3T/2T sequence or combo, a 2A/2T sequence or combo, etc.? That the muscle memory from years of performing specific elements would suddenly turn off without practice and that the timing change would be insignificant?

Well they should have been practicing a 3 salchow for years as well. It's not as if PetTikhs and TT/MM went out and just learned these triples. Also with I&B's attempts at 3 lutzes, the jump demands are only going to increase.

 

[slutskayafan21]

I love Stephane, but his spins don't meet the criteria for any higher levels. I do think this is bogus. As for lower GOEs, he does tend to travel a bit on his spins. I still think he's a fab spinner, though.

What was this thread about? Oh, pairs. I have no comment on pairs, except that I love the German pair. :yes:

ROTFL! So because his spins travel a bit he should get lower GOEs than Plushenko and Lysacek who have ugly positions, slow down at the end of spins, and also travel? As for the requirements of higher levels, the requirements of spin levels are ridiculous. I am starting to hate the new system, and how the judges use it to cheat.

 

[Vash01]

So, Matt, you noticed the same thing as the commetators. I had heard commentator (suzzie?) commented that some of their lfts were very simple yet were called level4, but at the same times she gushed all over their programs. Sounded almost like they are a shoe in in Turino.....If pre SLC media propgand was any indication, I believe the ppl in the known/circle already smell something.

But the spec/rules have been changed to lower difficulty in lifts (which had been known the weakest areas in Russian pairs. Even back to the days of B/S it was said -- by a knowlegable Canadian fans who thought S/P should've won at SLC -- their lifts were very simple compared to S/P's),

.

The 2002 Olympics did not use COP rules, so you cannot say that S&P should have won because their lifts were more difficult. B&S had better execution of lifts- smoothness, postures, speed. There is a LOT more to pairs skating than lifts. B&S had perfect positions, great edging, speed, and difficult choreography throughout their programs, and they received high marks for those things. S&P had poor posture, choppy stroking, less speed, and their level of difficulty in the transitions was nowhere close to B&S's. B&S had much more difficulty in their transitions- something that your 'knowledgeable Canadian fans' conveniently forgot. The 6.0 system rewarded B&S for what they did well, but they were not skating under the points system. IMO many skaters would have changed their programs from what they were in 2002, had they used the COP.

The important point here is - the two Olympics will be judged under different rules, so you really cannot talk about the 2002 Olympics here.

If we talk about the 2006 Olympics, it is a new ball game. The overall picture matters less than the sum of the points. T&M are certainly getting sympathy points, but I doubt that they are shoe ins at Turin. Strangely everyone is forgetting about S&Z- they could come back strong. Everyone is also forgetting about Zhang &Zhang. They are not my favorites, but the sum of points could put them over T&M, should T&M falter in one of their moves. As two-time & reigning world champions they are clearly the favorites for OGM right now, but why not wait until the competition has taken place? You are already talking about conspiracies, so that even if T&M win deservingly, you can blame somebody for it.

I don't understand why T&M's lifts are level 4 because I have not studied the COP rules in great detail. I do find their lifts to be slow and cautious (understandable, given their fall last year), although done with nice extensions and positions, but that would be an execution issue, I think (the cautiousness).

Vash

 

[Vash01]

As far as changing the Pairs jump rules, I think making the change in an Olympic year is unconscionable. The rule clearly favored T/M, Pet/Tik, and Z/Z at the expense of S/Z, O/S, and Pang/Tong. O/S and Pang/Tong are expendible this year, and Z/Z seem to have been thrown a bone with the rule change. Had Zhao not had to practice new jumps this season, chances are he would not have been injured. He was not hurt because he or his coach made the decision to try for higher levels or more points, but because the rules forced him to learn/re-learn a new element.

I agree that it is not good to make a major rule change (jumps in particular) in an Olympic year. However, I doubt that Zhao's injury was caused by this. Injuries can happen to any athlete any time. Besides, he did not HAVE to learn a new jump this year. They could have settled on a slightly lower level of difficulty on the sbs jumps, and focused on what they did well.

As far as Z&Z are concerned, I don't see this as a bone thrown to them. They often get away with poor overall program, just because they can do the difficult sbs jumps and high throws. They are clearly the beneficiaries of the NJS and new rules. That can happen to any lucky skater who is at the right place at the right time.

Petrova-Tikhonov, who are also an older pair, learned not only the sbs 3 salchows but also a throw triple loop quite late in their pairs career. So it can be done, and one cannot blame the rule changes/learning new elements for the injuries, which are always unfortunate.

Vash

 

[hockeyfan228]

Petrova-Tikhonov, who are also an older pair, learned not only the sbs 3 salchows but also a throw triple loop quite late in their pairs career. So it can be done, and one cannot blame the rule changes/learning new elements for the injuries, which are always unfortunate.

Vash

The difference is that Petrova/Tikhonov chose to change their elements, and instituted a training program that allowed them to add more difficulty gradually and based on their health. Zhao was already injured at Worlds last year, and he didn't choose to change his elements; the rule changes forced him to, and to spend more time on jumps. Even if they had attempted a 2A +2T sequence plus 3T's as their single jump, they still would have had to spend the time practicing the difference in timing and execution, and he did so on an already bad foot.

 

[zyyr]

Petrova-Tikhonov, who are also an older pair, learned not only the sbs 3 salchows but also a throw triple loop quite late in their pairs career. So it can be done, and one cannot blame the rule changes/learning new elements for the injuries, which are always unfortunate.

Vash

Actually I quite doubt why P/T chose to learn 3Salchows so "late in their career". Could it be because they had learned in advance that the rule was about to change?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

That would be a fascinating study, Joe. But IMHO it would take a really serious time commitment to undertake a research project of such scope and subtlety.

The cool thing about the CoP numbers game is that it requires only a brief glance at the protocol sheets to spot interesting trends. Psychology and sociology are much tougher nuts to crack.

MM

Certainly, I am not expecting you to do that kind of work. It's just so grating to read conspiracy when no one has even hinted at it. It can not happen again - ever. The sport is at an edge to either move on or fall back with SLC. IMO, some judges will continue to favor certain skaters for what ever reasons (including American judges). And a Tech Assistant plays a powerful role.

However, Zyyr raises an interesting point which has nothing to do with judges.

Joe

 

[Matt]

Wow, thanks for the input from everyone! Only on GS can I leave a topic for a couple of days and be met with 3-4 pages when I go to check it!

It worries me a little how much of a "conspiracy theory" thread this became all of a sudden. For the record, I wasn't suggesting that T/M were unfairly receiving a level 4 for their lifts and that there was any foul play. I was just noticing that all their lifts were receiving level 4 throughout the GP and that they didn't look like the same level 4 lifts I'd seen from other teams (like Pet/Tikh's star lift). The main purpose of the thread was to ask those more familiar with CoP to fill me in on what I wasn't seeing. T/M have some of the nicest lifts to look at in skating, IMHO, but I was just curious on what specifically made them a level 4

BTW, to answer hockeyfan's breakdown of their lifts, T/M's star lift has a one-armed entry with no outside support from her, so Marinin is dead-lifting her into the lift. The dismount is a half-twist out. Plus, her extension and position at the top of the lift is classic, so there's probably a GOE there somewhere. That's the only level 4 lift I didn't have any trouble seeing. I'm still kinda scratching my head on the other two, but you're explanation of the levels, hockeyfan, has helped a bunch

 

[mzheng]

The 2002 Olympics did not use COP rules, so you cannot say that S&P should have won because their lifts were more difficult. B&S had better execution of lifts- smoothness, postures, speed.
................
I don't understand why T&M's lifts are level 4 because I have not studied the COP rules in great detail. I do find their lifts to be slow and cautious (understandable, given their fall last year), although done with nice extensions and positions, but that would be an execution issue, I think (the cautiousness).

Vash

I'm full aware 2002 and 2006 judged under different systems. I never said S/P should've won based on lifts. I just use them as example that lifts had/has been weak point from Rusian pairs, which was what I read from the other fan who in favor of S/P to win SLC. I, for one, had always been the one in favor of B&S in SLC. And felt the first OGM was where should be.

Here we are talking about why TT/MM's lifts were mostly called level4. IMO, it's contribute to the changes in CoP system in favor of some top skaters during an Olympic seasons. All what I said in my post just support my point of view.

 

[mzheng]

Petrova-Tikhonov, who are also an older pair, learned not only the sbs 3 salchows but also a throw triple loop quite late in their pairs career. So it can be done, and one cannot blame the rule changes/learning new elements for the injuries, which are always unfortunate.

Vash

The thing is they had it already when the CoP spec changed this season.

Why not ISU increase the points of quad twist? In BinYao's opinion there are so many male skaters can do quad toe, and only 3 or four pairs can do quad twist, yet the difference between 4Toe and 3Toe is bigger than 4Twist vs 3Twist. Had the difference between 4Twist and 3Twist is bigger in Spec, he would have both Z/Z and P/T do the quad twists. All these changes definitely not in favor to top chinese pairs. Any one with a fair mind can see it.

 

[hockeyfan228]

Why not ISU increase the points of quad twist? In BinYao's opinion there are so many male skaters can do quad toe, and only 3 or four pairs can do quad twist, yet the difference between 4Toe and 3Toe is bigger than 4Twist vs 3Twist. Had the difference between 4Twist and 3Twist is bigger in Spec, he would have both Z/Z and P/T do the quad twists. All these changes definitely not in favor to top chinese pairs. Any one with a fair mind can see it.

All of the CoP weightings are to the advantage of some skaters and to the disadvantage of others. A skater like Buttle is able to be competitive without a quad and with 50% of a 3A, because the weighting of quads isn't much higher than the weighting for triples. The weighting for twists from one revolution to another has never been as high as it has for jumps, and by adding levels to twists, it makes just as much sense to do a double with features than a plain triple. Is the double with features just as difficult as the plain triple? Is it really 2.57 (9/3.5) times more difficult to do a 4T than a 3T, and only 1.44 (6.5/4.5) times more difficult to do a 4Tw than a 3Tw, or only 1.77 (8/4.5) times more difficult to do a 4Sal Throw than a 3Sal Throw?

Is it really the same difficulty for two people to do a jump side by side as it is for a single skater to do the same jump? Same with side-by-side spins. Yet the scale of value for pairs and singles is the same, while the chances for -GOE are that much greater, since regardless of how great the form is with pairs, lack of synchronicity means deductions.

Is it really as difficult to do a single 3T from momentum as it is to do a 3T as the second jump in combination? Is it really as difficult to do 3T/2T as it is to do 2T/3T? That's what scale of values says.

I have less sympathy for the argument that a 4T/2T (10.3) should be worth gads more than a 3Lz/3T (10), given the counterrotation and outside edge of the lutz and very little momentum going into the second triple, but I could be completely wrong about the relative difficulty of doing the two combinations.

I think scale of values should reflect the relative difficulty of the elements.

However, I think that Plushenko, Lambiel, and Joubert are at a disadvantage in the way that quads are valued, in the same way that Chinese pairs are at a disadvantage -- as are Obertas/Slavnov -- when it comes to the relative weighting of twists and throws. Perhaps there was a conspiracy and trade-off there, i.e., Plushenko has enough other qualities to win without lots of quad points -- a quadless Plushenko did virtually tie Lambiel, who had a quad, in the Moscow qualis -- so let's make sure we stack the deck in favor of the pairs, but that means there are a lot of people with way too much time on their hands.

 

[hockeyfan228]

BTW, to answer hockeyfan's breakdown of their lifts, T/M's star lift has a one-armed entry with no outside support from her, so Marinin is dead-lifting her into the lift. The dismount is a half-twist out. Plus, her extension and position at the top of the lift is classic, so there's probably a GOE there somewhere. That's the only level 4 lift I didn't have any trouble seeing. I'm still kinda scratching my head on the other two

One of the problems I have with the descriptions is that I don't know if a half-twist is considered a difficult dismount, a medium dismount, or a basic dismount. I think the axel lasso should qualify because the axel entry would seem, by definition, a difficult entry.

I agree that there should be lots of GOE in Totmianina's positions. She has beautiful posture, line, stretch, and amplitude. Of the Chinese pairs, only Shen and Zhao have amplitude, and then in some of their lifts. (H. Zhang and Tong would, if they were the ones being lifted ) They have greater speed, although, live Totmianina/Marinin have the kind of quiet speed that doesn't always show up on camera: they look like they're moving in slo-mo, except that they've covered most of the rink. But neither Shen's nor Pang's nor D. Zhang's air position matches Totmianina's, Petrova's, Obertas', Savchenko's or Volosozhar's, as examples. They tend to be flatter and more lateral, although seeing Zhang whipping by is viscerally exciting.

 

[mzheng]

However, I think that Plushenko, Lambiel, and Joubert are at a disadvantage in the way that quads are valued, in the same way that Chinese pairs are at a disadvantage -- as are Obertas/Slavnov -- when it comes to the relative weighting of twists and throws. Perhaps there was a conspiracy and trade-off there, i.e., Plushenko has enough other qualities to win without lots of quad points -- a quadless Plushenko did virtually tie Lambiel, who had a quad, in the Moscow qualis -- so let's make sure we stack the deck in favor of the pairs, but that means there are a lot of people with way too much time on their hands.

I'm fully awear the change always in favor to some skaters and put others in disadvantage. The thing is the timing of change, and how the fields level changed/tilted after the change. In men field, with the points as is now, even Plushenko is slightly disadvantaged by value assigned to the quad but her close competetors Lambiel and Joubert are both in the same disadvantage. But in pairs, the change of rule clearly tilted the play field in Olympics to put whole chinese team in disadvantage. As for Obertas/Slavnov they are the trade off of Russian pairs. It's just like politics coming to the rules....that's the last chance of sweep for Russian figure skating empire.

 

[hockeyfan228]

I'm fully awear the change always in favor to some skaters and put others in disadvantage. The thing is the timing of change, and how the fields level changed/tilted after the change. In men field, with the points as is now, even Plushenko is slightly disadvantaged by value assigned to the quad but her close competetors Lambiel and Joubert are both in the same disadvantage. But in pairs, the change of rule clearly tilted the play field in Olympics to put whole chinese team in disadvantage. As for Obertas/Slavnov they are the trade off of Russian pairs. It's just like politics coming to the rules....that's the last chance of sweep for Russian figure skating empire.

You had raised the issue of the relative point value of 3Twist to 4Twist as being a disadvantage to the Chinese pairs. This did not change this year. What changed was adding levels to the twists, but since both Chinese pairs perform the highest level 3Twist, they are still on par with Totmianina/Marinin, and there is no effective change. (It puts them ahead of Obertas/Slavnov, whose 3Twist was rated L2 at GPF.)

Several of the rule changes made mistakes more costly, like getting no credit for a combo/sequence if one of the jumps was in violation of the Zayak rule, and defining the circumstances under which the Biellmann position counted towards reaching L4. In the latter case, a skater could continue to perform that same spin, learning nothing new, but earning a slightly lower base. As a I said earlier in the thread, I think it was unconscionable to make the rule change about jumps in an Olympic year, because it required a change in elements.