Men's Free Skate, Sat. 11/19 at 7:30 am EST

[CassAgain]

Charlie White in juniors got level 4 steps...I'm not sure, but I believe it was at sectionals 2005/2006 season, which would be in November 2005?
This video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6f3ow-4au8.

I love that video. Not only his hairdresser knows for sure. Great skating, too!

 

[seniorita]

^ He is not blond BLOND??

I finally watched men, yey Song, the 2010 Juniors in full force, I hope him and Hanyu have a great season. Liked his ex also!
From all the stuff I had read here I was waiting Chan worse, but I didnt think he was that bad, he just lost focus after the fall in steps. I liked the last minute of his program, he seemed to skate free. Btw I dont get the hair comments either, he looked the same to me as SC, no?
Ugh Brezina Lp is not my fav, music masacre, but I like his sp a lot so...

 

[wallylutz]

Don't remember who said it but there is no +SEQ penalty for 2A not in combo, unlike Triples and Quads

 

[Mathman]

What you suggest is sound mathematically but your reasoning failed to consider one important fact - it is incredibly difficult to rotate any kind of Quad.

The fact is, getting Quads credited as such is so hard that the risk of trying something you haven't really mastered is just not a feasible strategy no matter how good you are at math. If it were so simple, we would have seen so many men doing two Quads in the SP by now because in theory, a fall on a Quad - any Quad - minus GOE penalty, would still be stronger than their respective Triple. But we haven't. So that tells you why your proposal is only sound mathematically but does not make sense from the perspective of the athlete.

One of the advantages of putting in a quad< in the LP is that you avoid Zayak problems. As I look at Takahashi's jump layout, the other seven passes are pretty much maxed out: two triple Axels, two triple flips, Lutz, loop Salchow and toe (in combination). plus a 2A. What would be a good choice for his eighth jumping pass?

This is not a factor in the SP.

I agree, though that no one plans to fall. That would be a ridiculous strategy no matter what.

But the question was about risk. Score-wise, the risk factor goes down considerably when you have a good chance of getting half credit even if you fail. A skater might feel that it is worth going for the quad if his seccess rate in practice is only 50%, instead of waiting until it is 80%.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

Very difficult. Very difficult. Maybe impossible for any add-up-the-points system to achieve.

I'd argue that a holistic system doesn't do a better job.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

^^^ If you don't mind, wallylutz, I have a small question about PCS. I think some aspects of PCS should be somewhat fixed within a range--for instance, skating skills: Patrick Chan's skating skills marks should remain high even if he underperforms like he did this weekend.

But sometimes, I see big jumps in certain aspects of PCS within the same competition, and not just in more flexible things like PE and IN, which are more tethered to how a skater performed that day. I'm talking about things like Javier Fernandez at Skate Canada this year, when his SS mark jumped from 7.68 to a considerable 8.14 within the span of 24 hours from the SP to LP, yet I saw no clear improvements in this regard within the 24-hour timespan, and if I recall correctly, Fernandez actually skated with more speed and flow in the SP. I noticed this same phenomenon also happens when a lower-tiered skater unexpectedly makes the final group of a competition.

How is this justified?

I think, while not justification, one thing worth mentioning is that judges tend to feel more comfortable awarding higher PCS for the long than the short program. I think the most obvious example would be Chan at Worlds 2011. His short program was superbly skated, clean and not an edge out of place. His LP was a little more tentative in terms of everything. But his PCS was nearly 0.8 points higher per component.

 

[Blades of Passion]

I see big jumps in certain aspects of PCS within the same competition, and not just in more flexible things like PE and IN, which are more tethered to how a skater performed that day. I'm talking about things like Javier Fernandez at Skate Canada this year, when his SS mark jumped from 7.68 to a considerable 8.14 within the span of 24 hours from the SP to LP, yet I saw no clear improvements in this regard within the 24-hour timespan, and if I recall correctly, Fernandez actually skated with more speed and flow in the SP. I noticed this same phenomenon also happens when a lower-tiered skater unexpectedly makes the final group of a competition.

How is this justified?

It's not justified, it's just further proof of how judges score based upon politics more than anything else. The same thing happened here at TEB with Nan Song - his SP was better but he received significantly higher PCS in the LP as a result of the momentum of doing so well in the SP and being solidly in 2nd place after that segment.

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.

Not entirely accurate considering those "Quad King" skaters often suffered in the presentation mark, especially Chengjiang Li. The idea you posit of the quality of the judging being bad because of the 6.0 system doesn't really have any supporting argument. It is not the 6.0 system's fault that poor programs may have been overly scored in the presentation mark, it is the fault of the judging and the powers that be. If skaters had been told under the 6.0 system that their presentation score would drop if they didn't include enough transitions, then we would have seen more transitions. If skaters had been told their technical score would drop if they didn't include difficult spin variations and plenty of difficulty in the footwork, then those elements would have become more robust.

"Interesting choreography and solid composition" hasn't really improved with CoP. The composition of programs has arguably become worse, actually, with elements placed in such a way to maximize technical points rather than to maximize the choreography and meaningfulness of the program. The choreography itself is now much more packed with additional steps, turns, and edges in comparison to the past but that doesn't necessarily mean it's more interesting. Do you think G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1046173/) is a better film than Lost in Translation (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335266/) since the former had non-stop action sequences that required a lot more manpower and money and complex CGI to create?

Like most things in life, there needs to be a good balance and a sense of purpose. Complexity/difficulty/"busy work" just for the sake of it does not a great sport make. It's good that CoP has brought greater emphasis on pure skating ability back into the sport but that should not be allowed to overwhelm and diminish what makes figure skating truly inspirational - conjoining wonderful movement and positions on ice with music and performance art.

 

[Mathman]

I'd argue that a holistic system doesn't do a better job.

I think that one's intuition about what constitutes a great performance is holistic. I almost always have a strong intuition about which skater was best, second best, etc., even though I cannot tell you what jumps the skaters did, much less whether a competitor turned in the opposite direction at least 33.3% of the time during his footwork sequence.

The CoP has many virtues and I can see why the majority of skaters, judges and skating experts like it. But it does place a barrier between the performances and the fans. To me, there is a loss of immediacy. (I know, I know -- the cure for what ails me is to study the rule book some more. )

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

I think that one's intuition about what constitutes a great performance is holistic. I almost always have a strong intuition about which skater was best, second best, etc., even though I cannot tell you what jumps the skaters did, much less whether a competitor turned in the opposite direction at least 33.3% of the time during his footwork sequence.

The CoP has many virtues and I can see why the majority of skaters, judges and skating experts like it. But it does place a barrier between the performances and the fans. To me, there is a loss of immediacy. (I know, I know -- the cure for what ails me is to study the rule book some more. )

More accurately, I should state that one's intuition isn't always correct. I'll agree with you about the loss of immediacy and the barrier. We all know how much I care about that.

 

[evangeline]

I think, while not justification, one thing worth mentioning is that judges tend to feel more comfortable awarding higher PCS for the long than the short program. I think the most obvious example would be Chan at Worlds 2011. His short program was superbly skated, clean and not an edge out of place. His LP was a little more tentative in terms of everything. But his PCS was nearly 0.8 points higher per component.

I see what you mean, but at the same time, I don't understand. We are told that PCS is, unlike 6.0, not used as a tool to rank skaters or reflect their reputations. These values, especially in categories like TR and SS, are supposed to be somewhat objective and quantifiable. Yet with this jump in PCS between the long and short programs, does this mean that skaters magically gain better SS within a 24-hour time period?

I chose Javier as an example because (although I do like his skating and am a fan), to me, he is an especially egregious example of this phenomenon. Last season (e.g. 2011 Worlds), Javi was a 6-range skater in PCS. After his short program at Skate Canada, Javi's score shot up to firmly in the 7-range. Now, he skated very well and I see how he has improved in many areas in his skating over the summer, like in CH. So the 7s seemed justified to me. But after the LP, BOOM! All 8s, except for TR. And he really didn't skate as well as he did in the SP either. Even as a fan, I didn't think the 8s were justified.

And yet we are told reputation, momentum, how you jumped, blah blah blah, aren't supposed to affect PCS like that under CoP. So what gives?

 

[Mathman]

More accurately, I should state that one's intuition isn't always correct.

The intuition of the fans is often askew -- they always think that their favorite skated better than his rival. (That's what makes them fans. )

But I think that the intuition (if that's the right word) of a panel of expert judges is just as "correct" as the mathematical sums that determine the winner in the current system.

 

[wallylutz]

One of the advantages of putting in a quad< in the LP is that you avoid Zayak problems. As I look at Takahashi's jump layout, the other seven passes are pretty much maxed out: two triple Axels, two triple flips, Lutz, loop Salchow and toe (in combination). plus a 2A. What would be a good choice for his eighth jumping pass?

I assumed you are talking about his LP protocol from NHK 2011. Don't know where you saw the 2A because it is not listed that he has done that jump in the protocol. Takahashi didn't max out his jump content. Although he did have 8 Triples, he failed to take advantage of:

1) The opportunity to have up to two Double Axels in the LP, potentially worth a little more than 7 points in BV (if done in the 2nd half), or more than that of a Triple Lutz

2) Utilizing a slot for a 3 jump combination

The 2T behind the 3Lz was unnecessary as he had no plan of repeating the 3Lz. There are many choices he could have done in lieu of the 4F attempt. For one, he could do a 2A+1Lo+3S combo in lieu of the stand alone 3S and by not doing the 2T off the 3Lz. But more directly, the entire 4F pass could also be replaced by a 2A+2A sequence and pushed to the 2nd half for a 5.80 in BV, more than that of a 3F. I am sure you can agree that 2A+2A is far easier than any 4F attempt, hence he has a much higher chance of getting positive GOE than an almost certain negative GOE from a 4F attempt. Not to mention, the psychological bonus of having a "clean skate" which is a big plus when you are Daisuke Takahashi knowing his PCS potential.

But the question was about risk. Score-wise, the risk factor goes down considerably when you have a good chance of getting half credit even if you fail. A skater might feel that it is worth going for the quad if his seccess rate in practice is only 50%, instead of waiting until it is 80%.

I think your logic is flawed and no better example to illustrate this than Mao Asada's elusive Triple Axel attempt. You actually get less than half of the credit for a Quad or Triple Axel attempt when you receive a << notation. The value is approximately 40% of the Quad. For example, while a 4T is worth 10.3, a 4T<< is worth only 4.1. And if the 4T<< resulted in a fall, the value is most likely = 4.1 - 2.7 - 1.0 = 0.4 From 10.3 down to 0.4, I think it's hard to support your argument of "half credit even if you fail". You could fail a jump in many ways, falling on a Quad is hardly the only or necessarily the most serious way of ruining it. And if Asada's 3A is almost always fully rotated, her coach wouldn't be telling her to skip that jump for now. Because her 3A is seldom fully rotated, not because she falls that much on that jump. Many ladies have practiced doing 3A but few are willing to put it in competition because the whole argument that you get half credit even when you fail is simply untrue unless you are confident to actually rotate and land the jump. I feel the penalty for failing a high value jump is still quite severe.

 

[wallylutz]

I chose Javier as an example because (although I do like his skating and am a fan), to me, he is an especially egregious example of this phenomenon. Last season (e.g. 2011 Worlds), Javi was a 6-range skater in PCS. After his short program at Skate Canada, Javi's score shot up to firmly in the 7-range. Now, he skated very well and I see how he has improved in many areas in his skating over the summer, like in CH. So the 7s seemed justified to me. But after the LP, BOOM! All 8s, except for TR. And he really didn't skate as well as he did in the SP either. Even as a fan, I didn't think the 8s were justified.

And yet we are told reputation, momentum, how you jumped, blah blah blah, aren't supposed to affect PCS like that under CoP. So what gives?

I'll look into this, just give me some time. I am too tried to do this tonight but should be able to review this sometimes this week.

 

[Mathman]

We all know how much I care about that.

No, actually I don't. Are you saying that you do care about the audience, or that you don't?

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

Don't.

 

[Bluebonnet]

I see what you mean, but at the same time, I don't understand. We are told that PCS is, unlike 6.0, not used as a tool to rank skaters or reflect their reputations. These values, especially in categories like TR and SS, are supposed to be somewhat objective and quantifiable. Yet with this jump in PCS between the long and short programs, does this mean that skaters magically gain better SS within a 24-hour time period?

I chose Javier as an example because (although I do like his skating and am a fan), to me, he is an especially egregious example of this phenomenon. Last season (e.g. 2011 Worlds), Javi was a 6-range skater in PCS. After his short program at Skate Canada, Javi's score shot up to firmly in the 7-range. Now, he skated very well and I see how he has improved in many areas in his skating over the summer, like in CH. So the 7s seemed justified to me. But after the LP, BOOM! All 8s, except for TR. And he really didn't skate as well as he did in the SP either. Even as a fan, I didn't think the 8s were justified.

And yet we are told reputation, momentum, how you jumped, blah blah blah, aren't supposed to affect PCS like that under CoP. So what gives?

The more we go into detailed math, the more I'm confused about the number measuring method. It can't be absolutely accurate except probably BV in TES. Even BV has the trace of human brain processing in it with determinations on whether or not having under rotating, down grading, edge calls, level of spins and steps, and Credit for highlight distribution. SS and TR are absolutely not subjective-free. How do you measure a skill without using a ruler? It's a human brain processed result. It's not real math. Therefore, I think comparing and ranking are unavoidable. As long as the ranking is correct, it is correct. CoP and 6.0 are the same. The only difference is that CoP breaks down into details and see individual pieces rather than see the whole. As a result, CoP is more technical, less in relying on reputation, and more difficult to manipulate.

 

[Violet Bliss]

As I have expressed before, my thought is that PCS does resemble 6.0 in that there is a definitive ceiling on each mark, thus necessitating comparisons/ordinals. TES ceiling is more flexible and complicated to reach as it depends on elements executed, their BV, and GOE received. Judges are not deciding on the marks by comparing skaters on a holistic manner but are focusing on grading the performances of individual elements. With the tech panel making qualifying calls, the Total Scores are really not completely the judges' responsibilty or in their control. However, PCS are more than just ordinals in the PC but the marks themselves are important because they are added to form the Total Scores.

 

[Bluebonnet]

A bit too late for comments but I finally watched Rippon and Brezina's LPs.

Adam's skating was beautiful for sure. But his strokes were laboured. That has become part of his style. Didn't correct them at very young, now it's difficult to correct them. Oh, well, he and his fans might not think that was a problem. But to me, that makes his skating heavy, not as pretty as his look. Good that he has the guts to put in 4Lz every time.

Where was Brezina's quad that he blamed his coach for not letting him put in at SA? Generally, I like his skating style. He skated cautiously and some spins were very slow. The final spin was ugly.

 

[Mathman]

Don't.

I am surprised. But I think the ISU concurs.

IMO they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

 

[wallylutz]

^^^ If you don't mind, wallylutz, I have a small question about PCS. I think some aspects of PCS should be somewhat fixed within a range--for instance, skating skills: Patrick Chan's skating skills marks should remain high even if he underperforms like he did this weekend.

Your understanding of SS as a part of PCS is incorrect. SS aren't "somewhat fixed" on the basis of the skater but rather contingent on the performance. A certain skater who has the potential to score in the 8s for SS provided he/she skates all out and pushed it to the edge may not get this score if the same skater holds back and skate below potential. It also seems to me you are confusing "underperforming" when it comes to elements such as jumps, which is what Patrick Chan mostly had issues with this past weekend. But a performance that is noted for technical errors such as stepping outs, falls and etc. on elements does not necessarily affect SS. Likewise, completing elements flawlessly is largely irrelevant as far as the criteria of SS are concerned. If a technical error is so severe that it disrupts part of the performance such as Oda's fall in his step sequence during last weekend's LP, that's another story and will rightfully affects his SS and other components as well. But a down and up fall will not have much of an effect. Another example I can give you is to look at Michelle Kwan's 1998 Olympics LP where she had no errors per say on her elements but because she was holding back and skated more cautiously, an argument can be made she displayed SS that was below her potential. Hence, if you feel that her maximum is around 9.00, then rightfully, such skate could be half a point lower. In other words, you will need to look at SS as though these single skaters are ice dancers.

But sometimes, I see big jumps in certain aspects of PCS within the same competition, and not just in more flexible things like PE and IN, which are more tethered to how a skater performed that day. I'm talking about things like Javier Fernandez at Skate Canada this year, when his SS mark jumped from 7.68 to a considerable 8.14 within the span of 24 hours from the SP to LP, yet I saw no clear improvements in this regard within the 24-hour timespan, and if I recall correctly, Fernandez actually skated with more speed and flow in the SP. I noticed this same phenomenon also happens when a lower-tiered skater unexpectedly makes the final group of a competition.

How is this justified?

I reviewed Javier Fernandez's SP and LP from Skate Canada 2011. First of all, I need to correct your perception that Fernandez skated with more speed in the SP vs. his LP, that turned out to be untrue. Here are the clips I used:

Javier Fernandez SC 2011 SP

Javier Fernandez SC 2011 FS

Right from the top, Fernandez flew across the ice in his FS, demonstrating far better flow and effortless glide than he did in the SP. More specifically, let's breakdown the various criteria of SS and see what are the differences between his SP and FS.

1) Balance/rhythm/precision: Pretty much the same between the two programs, this is an area where Javier needs to demonstrate a greater confidence in his ability to create beautiful patterns on ice. He comes across as somewhat tentative whenever he starts to execute complicate steps and slows down considerably and carries less flow. Precision of his skating should improve as he gains more mileage; right now, they look new and he looks cautious. Suggested Score: 6.75

2) Flow/Speed: Edge to his FS. The design of his SP, while entertaining to see, failed to showcase Fernandez's respectably powerful glide. Although well skated, it makes it hard from a judging standpoint to reward an aspect that was not clearly shown. Given his general cautiousness when executing intricate connecting steps, there were relatively few occasions to properly assess his flow & speed in the SP whereas his FS properly displayed his ability in this area beyond doubt. Suggested Score: SP = 6.50 LP = 7.75

3) Cleaness/Sureness/Edge Quality: Edge to his FS. It can be hard to dissociate technical errors on elements when evaluating PCS but it must. Despite the name cleaness/sureness, this has actually nothing to do with falling or stepping out of an element (e.g. jump). Rather, this criterion looks at the sureness and depth of the skater's edges. Javier Fernandez's edge quality still requires some improvement. Judging him as though he is an Ice Dancer, it is noted that his edge is not very secure at times and lacks a bit of depth. However, his FS was designed in a way that gave him more chances to demonstrate cleaner running edges than his SP. The fact that a FS is much longer than a SP often gives skaters more opportunity to demonstrate skills that they otherwise didn't have time to show in a packed SP, hence, quite often, the PCS will go up in the FS vs. SP. Suggested Score: SP = 6.75 LP = 7.25

4) Variety in power/acceleration: Edge to his FS. Javier showcased relatively few variety in his overall skating quality during his SP where the power and mostly, acceleration, remains at mostly same level. This is however considerably better in his LP where there were more clearly defined different levles throughout the different parts of his FS. Suggested Score: SP = 6.50 LP = 7.75

5) Multi directional skating: About the same between the two programs. There were some changes of direction in his skating but they tend to remain in the same direction most of the time. This is an area that Javier can significantly improve as well. While his performance are entertaining to watch, from the perspective of a sport as opposed to a show, he needs to show a greater ability to skate in unpredicted directions with more changes than he currently does. Suggested Score: 7.00

6) Skating on one foot: Edge to his SP. The composition of his SP is more intricate and showcased some very interesting use of turns and steps throughout his performance. His FS continues to demonstrate an above average use of connecting steps and skating on one foot but overall, slightly less intricate than his SP. Suggested Score: SP = 8.25 LP = 8.00

All things considered, I would give him Skating Skills score of 7.00 in the SP and 7.50 for his LP. The panel averaged to about 0.50 of difference as well which seems just about right to me.

I hope this helps.