Marks for clean "standard jump difficulty" performances from various judging panels?

[slutskayafan21]

Marks for clean "standard jump difficulty" performances from various judging panels?

What scores do you think each of the top skaters would get for a totally clean performance in front of three various judging panels-the stingy panel, the generous panel, and the regular panel. At the Olympics this year most scores were done by a "generous panel" for example. At the GP this year most scores were done by a "stingy panel".

For men the standard jump quota would be two quads, one triple axel, one triple lutz, one triple flip, one triple loop, one triple sal, two triples toes each on the end of one other jump, a double loop on the end of one of either the triple-triple or quad-triple, and a double toe on the end of another jump, plus a double axel, in the long. In the short it would be a quad-triple, a triple flip-triple toe, and a triple lutz.

For the women it would be a triple lutz-double toe, triple flip, and double axel, in the short. It would be two triple lutzes, a triple flip, a triple loop, a triple sal, a triple toe, another triple toe on the end of a triple, and a double axel, along with a double toe-double loop on the end of one jump, and a double toe on the end of another.


My estimations would be:

Plushenko- short program: generous panel-90 and change,
regular panel-87 and change, stingy panel-84 and change.

long program: generous panel-175 and change, regular panel-170 and change,
stingy panel-165 and change.

Lambiel- short program: generous panel-85 and change, regular panel-
82 and change, stingy panel-80 and change.

long program: generous panel-168 and change, regular panel-163 and change,
stingy panel-158 and change

Buttle- short program: generous panel-83 and change, regular panel-
80 and change, stingy panel-78 and change

long program: generous panel-166 and change, regular panel-162 and change,
stingy panel-156 and change

Weir- short program: generous panel-83 and change, regular panel-80 and change, stingy panel-77 and change

long program: generous panel-162 and change, regular panel-157 and change, stingy panel-152 and change

Joubert- short program: generous panel-82 and change, regular panel-80 and change, stingy panel-77 and change

long program: generous panel-160 and change, regular panel-156 and change, stingy panel-152 and change

Lysacek- short program: generous panel- 80 and change, regular panel-78 and change, stingy panel-75 and change

long program: generous panel-158 and change, regular panel-154 and change, stingy panel-150 and change



Ladies:

Slutskaya- short program: generous panel- 70 and change, regular panel-66 and change, stingy panel-64 and change

long program: generous panel-135 and change, regular panel-130 and change, stingy panel-125 and change


Cohen- short program: generous panel-68 and change, regular panel-66 and change, stingy panel-62 and change

long program: generous panel-132 and change, regular panel-128 and change,
stingy panel-122 and change


Arakawa- short program: generous panel-67 and change, regular panel-64 and change, stingy panel-62 and change

long program: generous panel-135 and change, regular panel-130 and change,
stingy panel-125 and change


Suguri- short program: generous panel-64 and change, regular panel-61 and change, stingy panel-59 and change

long program: generous panel-126 and change(remember this is with a triple-triple which she does not do anyway), regular panel-122 and change, stingy panel-117 and change

When I say generous or stingy panels, I do not neccessarily mean I consider the scores generous or stingy, it is the category the judges would fall in relative to other judging panels is all.

 

[antmanb]

For men the standard jump quota would be two quads, one triple axel, one triple lutz, one triple flip, one triple loop, one triple sal, two triples toes each on the end of one other jump, a double loop on the end of one of either the triple-triple or quad-triple, and a double toe on the end of another jump, plus a double axel, in the long. In the short it would be a quad-triple, a triple flip-triple toe, and a triple lutz.

Well the short program requires a double or a triple axel so the SP jump count needs to take that into consideration.

Also the "standard" jump schedule above. The only skaters actually putting two quads in their programs are Pluschenko, Lambiel and Joubert so i'm not sure what the point in pretending skaters like Weir could do two quads is, especially since someone like weir would probably still include two triple axels since that jump is fairly consistent and beautiful for him.

Also is it meant to be based on our opinions on what the skaters could get for a jump or what they would likely be given, given their skills...again for a skater like weir are we to assume that he attempts to quads but falls and get -3 or fluffs it slightly and gets -2 or -1??

I'm not sure i get this exericise!

Ant

 

[Mathman]

... for a skater like weir are we to assume that he attempts to quads but falls and get -3 or fluffs it slightly and gets -2 or -1?

I'm a little confused, too. Is the assumption that everyone does the same technical elements and does them all well, so we guessing just about the program component scores?

 

[slutskayafan21]

The assumption is that all skaters are able to do the two quad long program, and the one quad short program, while maxing out the jump availabilities by doing the jumps I stated, except the second triple axel in the long which probably only Plushenko would do.

I actually have figured out that doing 1 quad vs none in the long maximizes your jump value by 5.7, assuming you max out the remaining jump opening, and 2 quads by 7.2, so you dont actually gain much doing a second quad. Two quads and two triple axels, vs a program with no quad, would be an 8.7 difference.

The assumption is that all these skaters do those jumps cleanly, which means not touching down, two footing, or falling. Exactly how well they are done is subjective to your own beliefs, except that they are not done with mistakes, and what scores the judges give them is dependent on your own estimations again.

There are many more things that would divide a skaters points if they all did the same jumps than PCS. Spin levels, spin GOE, footwork level, footwork GOE, jump GOE, who includes a couple more jumps later in the program for extra bonus, and PCS.

 

[gkelly]

If you're going to assume the same jump content, then just look up the point values for those jumps and include them in the hypothetical base mark for all the skaters.

Assume the same spin and step/spiral sequence content too, or look at the levels each had been consistently averaging and use those for each skater.

None of that is under the control of the judges. Technical specialists' calling of levels or decisions whether to downgrade jumps would have an affect on the base marks.

As for the judges, what you want to know is what kinds of grades of execution and component marks they would give to each skater. You can also look back at averages for these. Of course, it depends a lot on how well the skater actually skates and performs the elements at one competition vs. another, but the "generosity" of the panel also factors in.

You can analyze the actual skating and marking as it has already occurred and project from that to your hypothetical situations. Or you can just pull numbers out of thin air. Ultimately, though, even well thought-through predictions will end up getting trumped by what really happens when the skaters actually skate and the judges actually judge.

 

[SeaniBu]

ZI think when they "create the components" of their program they are taking into consideration that NOT everything is going to go perfectly as well as some flexibility to how their feeling through out. JMO.

Is there an "emotionicon" that is spinning in circles with a question-mark above their head? I need one.