- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
I think he just wants to do the quad flip. Who wouldn't? Since there is no real downside to failing, Bob's your uncle.
I think he said the 4F was easier on his bad knee than the 4T....
I think he just wants to do the quad flip. Who wouldn't? Since there is no real downside to failing, Bob's your uncle.
I thought we were talking about who got level 4, and I remember that Daisuke and Plushenko got level 4 in the season of Torino Olys, the first in Sl and the other in Ci. You meant who landed a 4-3 and a level 4?Are you certain? Evan did it at the 2007-8 GPF, and I must say that I can't recall Dai landing many 4-3s before or after that. I do believe Dai was one of the first skaters to get a level 4, if not the first.
Well, that's what makes it hard, isn't it? To do both in the same program... clearly Plushy was the true pioneer when it came to quads and footwork, and his place in history must be acknowledged!I thought we were talking about who got level 4, and I remember that Daisuke and Plushenko got level 4 in the season of Torino Olys, the first in Sl and the other in Ci. You meant who landed a 4-3 and a level 4?
Well, that's what makes it hard, isn't it? To do both in the same program... clearly Plushy was the true pioneer when it came to quads and footwork, and his place in history must be acknowledged!
and I'm glad Chan beat Song.
I think what I want is for Chan and his team to stop trying to crush, rather than just defeat, the competition. One quad or 4-3 is fine in this field, he doesn't need two. If he thins out his programs just a little we'll see him with fewer falls and his winning programs (and scores) will be universally applauded.
Ooops! Thanks! Mathman! Go to sit in the corner and timeout myself, then go to study more about PCS.
I think what I want is for Chan and his team to stop trying to crush, rather than just defeat, the competition.
Mathman said:The point is to come up with a scoring system that is more in tune with our intuition about what constitutes a good skating performance.
Which, admittedly, is quite difficult.
If someone falls doing a jump unique to him or herself, that should be taken into account. When skater A lands a jump but skater B falls on the same jump, it is different. When skater B falls a few times on jumps that skater A landed successfully, skater A should have a comfortable margin. Maybe skater B can make up a few points by being more musical or whatever, but he should not beat him, in my opinion.
I do not consider that a big risk. Let's say he gets 3 points for a failed 4 flip, as opposed to 5.3 points for a successful 3 flip. That's a penalty of only 2.3 points.
If he rotates the 4 flip but then falls, the penalty is approximately 0.
If he succeeds with the 4 flip he gets 10 points or so -- double the value of the 3-flip.
There certainly isn't any additional penalty in the PCSs, as we just saw.
I have no idea how his final score would be. It's not about Chan. It's about the system. Chan is just a prime example of how badly designed this system is. They also need to reduce the weightings of pcs. The pcs is almost fixed. What's the point to have 50% of your final score being predetermined anyway?
There IS something wrong with a system where a skater falls multiple times in a FS and still gets SS and PE in the mid to upper 8s.
If the skater is all that skilled, one would think falls would be a rare thing instead of commonplace at every event.
That's because both Lambiel and Takahashi were injured/recovering from severe injuries by the time the Vancouver Olympics rolled around. They had been able to do both quads and footwork well in the same program in the past--e.g. 2006 Worlds for Lambiel, 2008 4CC for Takahashi, 2007 Worlds LP for both--though I recall Takahashi's quad in his LP in Tokyo was not quite so perfect, but it was landed and given full credit with only a little negative GOE.
As for Worlds and controversies, well, like Chan at TEB this weekend, Lambiel and Takahashi had their bad days, and for them, it so happened to have occurred at a World championships (2007 Worlds SP, 2008 Worlds as a whole for both of them, I guess).
But no offence, saying Chan is the first to combine the ability to do quads and quality footwork is tantamount to re-writing skating history.
I think you missed SF's point. While the examples you gave re: Lambiel and Takahashi are good ones - they were however off context and rather the exceptions rather than the norm of their times and slightly earlier. Both of these emerged as elite skaters after COP. If the argument is that 6.0 system overly simplified judging that produced "dull programs" and that skaters didn't need Quad and Footwork at the same time to be successful - I think such argument have some merit. Looking at skaters who actually emerged during the 6.0 era, which disqualified both Lambiel and Takahashi, the likes of Chenginang Li, Tim Goebel, Elvis Stojko - they were indeed Quad masters but otherwise, mediocre skaters. And if you landed Quads, your "Artistic Imression" mark automatically goes up to near or higher than your Technical Merit score. Interesting choreography or solid composition was rather secondary and showmanship is pretty much all you need.
I think you missed my point, actually. Also, I don't think Lambiel and Takahashi were exceptions to their times any more than Chan is an exception to the playing field today. Lambiel and Takahashi pushed their competitors forward much like Chan is doing so today. I really don't think someone like Evan Lysacek was doing quads in his programs for fun in 2007-8, right? And his Carmen program back then was probably the best one he ever had. Lysacek knew he couldn't beat the likes of Lambiel and Takahashi without a quad and a real program.
I don't disagree with what you said about the 6.0 era.