Men's Long Program

[Mathman]

Well, you can't blame Kevin Van Der Perren for the CoP. Kevin can read, Kevin can count.

He knows that he got 10.00 for his quad toe, 7.50 for his triple Axel, 10.35 for his 3S+3T, 8.03 for his 3Lz+2T.

The other men know this, too, but they didn't do anything about it.

As for spins, all the CoP requires is that you mechanically change position the requisite number of times. Kevin got three level 4s and one level 3. There is no GOE deduction for mechanical and boring.

Program Component Scores? Van Der Perren blew that off. He scored more than ten points behind both Joubert and Buttle, but won the LP anyway. His PCSs were also behind Mabee's, properly so, IMHO. (IMO neither Joubert nor Buttle deserved marks in the 7's anyway, but that's another post.)

Van Der Perren deserved to win because he was the only one who played the IJS game. You can't win if you don't play.

 

[slutskayafan21]

When he skates poorly, Jeff gets the same PCS as when he skates well. That doesn't make much sense. Are you saying that Jeff should always win because he is so talented?

It is that way for the other top men too. Look at the PCS Lambiel, Joubert, Lysacek, Takahashi have gotten when they skate poorly, doesnt reflect the difference so much. Lambiel managed the 2nd highest PCS for his short program performance at Worlds (higher then a clean Buttle BTW), and his short program at Skate Canada last year (higher then a clean Weir) and they were painful disaesters both times. While I understand what you are saying, if one is going to point that out about Jeff, we might as well for all of the established past contenders, since that is the way the judges are with all of them, and only once they have dropped you from being a serious contender in their minds (eg-Sandhu last year) will they drop the PCS that much for even a problematic skate.

It isnt exactly the same either, Jeff has been in the high 70s often when he skates better, and he was in the low 70s. Look at his PCS for his better performances and last night, and while you may not think it was enough of a difference it was a definite difference.

 

[rain]

Well, you can't blame Kevin Van Der Perren for the CoP. Kevin can read, Kevin can count.

He knows that he got 10.00 for his quad toe, 7.50 for his triple Axel, 10.35 for his 3S+3T, 8.03 for his 3Lz+2T.

The other men know this, too, but they didn't do anything about it.

As for spins, all the CoP requires is that you mechanically change position the requisite number of times. Kevin got three level 4s and one level 3. There is no GOE deduction for mechanical and boring.

Program Component Scores? Van Der Perren blew that off. He scored more than ten points behind both Joubert and Buttle, but won the LP anyway. His PCSs were also behind Mabee's, properly so, IMHO. (IMO neither Joubert nor Buttle deserved marks in the 7's anyway, but that's another post.)

Van Der Perren deserved to win because he was the only one who played the IJS game. You can't win if you don't play.

The problem with this attitude is that it's basically saying Van Der Perren's is the kind of program you'd like to see. That's not something I'm at all willing to say. As for levels on elements....yes, it's based on simple mechanics, but the judges are supposed to apply GOEs so that bad elements are recognized as such.

 

[museksk8r]

^^ True slutskayafan, it's much the same political game that 6.0 was.

 

[chuckm]

According to the protocol, VDP completed a quad, 7 triples and 3 double jumps, all clean. There were neither flutzes or lips on any of his jumps. In addition, he had three L4 spins and 1 L3 spin, and two L2 footwork sequences. He received -GOE on just one element, the circular footwork, and that was only a 0.06 deduction. He earned every point of the 74.54 TES he received.

He was the only man to deliver a clean program, and the judges rewarded him for it.

He did not get particularly high PCS because he is not that expressive---he got more than 11 points less than Buttle in the PCS score.

How could you justify placing Mabee's 5-triple program, with no 3A and only one triple combination (the 3A2T was downgraded to a 2A2T) above VDP's? Or Buttle's? Mabee did get 3 points higher in the PCS, which was the only area where he was superior to VDP.

Your reasons for wanting them placed ahead of VDP are purely emotional: you obviously wanted to see TWO Canadians on the Skate Canada podium.

But the ISU judges weighed what these 3 men did and they handed out the scores according to what was performed on the ice. And that was with a background of a screaming audience that gave a standing ovation to every Canadian skater or team regardless of how they performed. And that was told to me by a friend who just got back from Quebec.

My friend went to Skate America, too, and said that the audience there gave only a few standing ovations, and the biggest one went to Daisuke Takahashi after the SP. Kimmie got a standing ovation for her SP, but not her FS.

 

[slutskayafan21]

I agree Van Der Perren 100% deserved his win in free skating, and his silver medal (should have beaten Joubert by more in the free skate possibly). No disputing that. He was given no gifts, he earned every mark. If there is a possible question it would be Mabee over Buttle for the bronze, but as I said Buttle's PCS for his performance are no higher then you would expect for a top skater when they have those kinds of problems.

 

[Mathman]

The problem with this attitude is that it's basically saying Van Der Perren's is the kind of program you'd like to see.

It's not what I want to see, it's what the scoring system rewards. Neither Van Der Perren nor anyone else asked me what I wanted to see.

...the judges are supposed to apply GOEs so that bad elements are recognized as such.

Not really. There are very specific no-no's spelled out in the ISU guidelines for GOEs. If you don't do any of those (two-footed landings, wrong edge take-offs, not enough rotations on the spins, etc.), you're OK. There is no GOE penalty for just giving a blah and indifferent skate.

That having been said, however, I did enjoy Kevin's skate. I like to see a man hit a clean quad, a clean triple Axel, a clean triple-triple, a clean triple Lutz combination.

I don't like to see falls and pops and staggering about on the landing. To me, that distracts immensely from the interpretation and choreography side of it. There is nothing elegant and grand about a technically sloppy program, pretty music or no pretty music.

JMO.

 

[chuckm]

The problem with this attitude is that it's basically saying Van Der Perren's is the kind of program you'd like to see. That's not something I'm at all willing to say. As for levels on elements....yes, it's based on simple mechanics, but the judges are supposed to apply GOEs so that bad elements are recognized as such.

I DO like to see a clean program, I'll admit it.

But Buttle and Mabee COULD have done the same thing VDP did. Maybe they don't have a quad, but they could have taken advantage of CoP and done what they chose to do, and executed it well. Buttle fumbled his way through the jumps, and Mabee didn't do enough jumps, and perhaps he just doesn't have a reliable 3A, since the one he did was underrotated.

There were no "bad" elements in VDP's program. He got 0 or low +GOE on his spins, and a slight -GOE on one footwork sequence and a 0 on the other. He may not have done exceptional non-jump elements, but the ones he did were done well enough not to receive deductions. And that was the opinion of the 10 judges.

I just don't understand how you would pare VDP's score down. You can't take away his technical elements. So I guess you'd want the judges to mark him lower on the PCS. Only 3 judges gave him marks mostly in the 5s, and you can bet that one of those was the Canadian judge (the same judge who was the only one to give Buttle 8s). The other 7 judges marked him in the low 6s, which is where he wound up. QUITE fairly.

 

[slutskayafan21]

The problem with this attitude is that it's basically saying Van Der Perren's is the kind of program you'd like to see. That's not something I'm at all willing to say. As for levels on elements....yes, it's based on simple mechanics, but the judges are supposed to apply GOEs so that bad elements are recognized as such.

The judges are not really supposed to give out GOE unless there is an actually mistake on an element or a real struggle to hold on. They dont have the liberty to give out poor GOE for poor quality elements. Especialy poor quality elements and just fairly decent in execution ones are both supposed to be 0 in GOE. It is an unfortunate situation in a way, but it is the way it is.

 

[slutskayafan21]

Only 3 judges gave him marks mostly in the 5s, and you can bet that one of those was the Canadian judge (the same judge who was the only one to give Buttle 8s). The other 7 judges marked him in the low 6s, which is where he wound up. QUITE fairly.

One judge gave Buttle PC marks in the 8s? That is a disgrace. You can bet your bottom dollar that was the Canadian judge. I often hate how in Canada our judges are all potrayed as angels. We have had some real doozies over the years that come to mind for me. Bill McLaughlin, Jane Gardner, Benoit Lavoie, Debbie Islam, all come to mind. I could give examples of some of all of their past shameful markings.

 

[fumie_fumie]

Chuckm,

correct me if I am wrong. According to the protocol, Mabee did 7 triples.

1. 3F
2. 3A (in combination with 2T), which is a huge improvement from his last year's performance.
3. 3Lz in combination with 3T, which is no 4
5. 3Lo
6. 3S
7. 3Lutz

link to the protocol:
http://www.isufs.org/results/gpcan07/sc07_Men_FS_Scores.pdf

The standing ovation was to congratulate his achievement. He is a different skater than he was a year ago. His jumps are a lot more solid and he's gained a lot of confidence in his jumps. Same with Vaughn Chipeur. You are looking at the guy who finished 16th at 2006 Canadian nationals and rose up to no 5 at a grand prix event. Yes, something to celebrate on. As for Jeff, his footwork and flow was just dazzling. He skates with passion and you can see it. Yes, we love all of our skaters and there is nothing wrong with that.

Going back to our beloved Kevin boy, Mathman is right. Kevin is smart in a sense that he did his homework, number crunching before FS.

 

[chuckm]

Loook at the protocol again. The jump is marked 3A<2T, meaning the jump was underrotated (one of just 8 UR calls at Skate Canada) and downgraded to a double.

Mabee got credit only for a 2A2T, worth just 4.80, and then got a penalty GOE of -1.28. He would up with just 3.52 points for a combination that would have been worth 8.8 points if it had been fully rotated.

He popped the second axel attempt.

There isn't much special about a standing ovation if everyone gets one, even when they don't skate well. It's OK, you, you're our countryman, hurray!

I've been to skating competitions where there were NO standing ovations because no one deserved one. I know I wouldn't have stood up for Kimmie Meissner Evan Lysacek if they gave a lackluster or just adequate performance. To me, standing ovations are for a truly outstanding effort, and that does not mean a program with stumbles, pops and falls.

Chipeur finished 5th at Skate Canada because the non-Canadians, aside from Joubert and Van Der Perren, were a remarkably undistiguished bunch.

Ponsero is known for killer SPs and bad FSs. Jeremy Abbott was the only possible challenger, and unfortunately he bombed in the SP (but finished 4th in the FS). Scott Smith is getting a bit long in the tooth, and has never come close to medaling at a GP event. Kaska is an engaging kid, skating at his first GP event. The rest were no competition. Othman has finished in the bottom 3 at Skate Canada for the last three years. Varner was last in 2006 and was last again this year. Wu is a very mediocre skater with little in the way of achievements.

The worst Chipeur could have done was 7th, if Ponsero and Abbott had been on their game.

 

[Mathman]

But Mabee put on a great show! I think that's what he got the standing ovation for.

And Chipeur's program was entertaining, too, though not in the razz-ma-tazz show biz sense that Mabee's Sing, Sing, Sing was.

 

[slutskayafan21]

But Mabee put on a great show! I think that's what he got the standing ovation for.

And Chipeur's program was entertaining, too, though not in the razz-ma-tazz show biz sense that Mabee's Sing, Sing, Sing was.

Yeah I very much enjoyed them. I have a feeling whenever he leaves eligible competition Mabee will be a great show skater in Canada for a long time.

 

[museksk8r]

Scott Smith is getting a bit long in the tooth, and has never come close to medaling at a GP event.

He was 4th at the 2006 Cup of China actually, finishing 3rd in the SP and 4th in the LP. All in all though, he's not a reliable competitor and does not have elements of his skating that make him special and stand out from the pack.

 

[rain]

Your reasons for wanting them placed ahead of VDP are purely emotional: you obviously wanted to see TWO Canadians on the Skate Canada podium.

I have no problem debating the various merits of programs with you, however, this statement is offensive to me because it is a personal attack and entirely untrue.

I wouldn't have cared if no Canadians made the podium. You can choose to believe that or not, but I would hope, since you don't know me at all, that you would give me the benefit of the doubt on that one. The only skater I was more or less certain would make the podium here prior to the event was Joubert, and lo and behold, he did (entirely deservedly). I don't even particularly have an issue with how the placements turned out. I can see the reasoning behind it. I'm simply saying I don't agree with it and it has led, in this case, in my opinion of course, to the undesirable result of massively rewarding a program that was utterly barren of anything except jumps. It harkens back to the days when it didn't matter if you did footwork and spins, or anything really besides the quad.

If you've read any of my posts in the past, you might have noticed that I have issues with the COP rewarding ugly and lacklustre spins and footwork, done by skaters who aren't very good at them simply to garner more points. The levels of VDP's very wanting footwork and spins simply bear out my argument. And yes, I do think the sluggish pace of footwork should be reflected in the GOEs. I understand there are guidelines, but what it comes down to is that they are supposed to mark the degree of how well or badly an element is performed.

 

[chuckm]

Scott finished 6th at Skate America 2006, and CoC last year had two substitutions who weren't exactly podium material. Then there were the two Chinese men (Gao and Wu) and Ryo Shibata---all in all a lackluster group. Scott did skate well in China last year, but he's 26 now, and his quad is more unreliable than ever.

 

[chuckm]

I have no problem debating the various merits of programs with you, however, this statement is offensive to me because it is a personal attack and entirely untrue.

I wouldn't have cared if no Canadians made the podium. You can choose to believe that or not, but I would hope, since you don't know me at all, that you would give me the benefit of the doubt on that one. The only skater I was more or less certain would make the podium here prior to the event was Joubert, and lo and behold, he did (entirely deservedly). I don't even particularly have an issue with how the placements turned out. I can see the reasoning behind it. I'm simply saying I don't agree with it and it has led, in this case, in my opinion of course, to the undesirable result of massively rewarding a program that was utterly barren of anything except jumps. It harkens back to the days when it didn't matter if you did footwork and spins, or anything really besides the quad.

If you've read any of my posts in the past, you might have noticed that I have issues with the COP rewarding ugly and lacklustre spins and footwork, done by skaters who aren't very good at them simply to garner more points. The levels of VDP's very wanting footwork and spins simply bear out my argument. And yes, I do think the sluggish pace of footwork should be reflected in the GOEs. I understand there are guidelines, but what it comes down to is that they are supposed to mark the degree of how well or badly an element is performed.

I'm sorry that you have issues with CoP, but it's here, and it's the system the skaters have to adapt to in order to rack up points. There's no footwork deduction for 'sluggishness' or lack of speed. VDP did the spins according to the CoP guidelines and did not make any mistake that would cause him to get a deduction.

Buttle gets high GOE on his footwork and spins, and VDP doesn't---he gets mostly zeros. THAT IS ENTIRELY FAIR. What happened was Buttle did not complete his planned jumps, and he lost lots of points because of that. VDP completed all his jumps, and he did them all cleanly, and got credit for everything he did.

Buttle got very high PCS scores (IMO, too high, but that's another story) because presentation is his strong suit and he has great non-jump elements.
VDP got mediocre ones, because he is slow at times and he isn't a great musical interpreter. That is fair, too.

If Jeff had landed all his planned jumps, he would have scored 77.57 in TES and would have beaten Brian Joubert for the gold. And that is without a quad!

What you want is for CoP to reward the skaters YOU like, and punish the ones you don't. But it doesn't work that way. Skaters have to deliver, and those who do rack up the points. Those who don't wind up being endlessly disappointed.

 

[rain]

I'm sorry that you have issues with CoP, but it's here, and it's the system the skaters have to adapt to in order to rack up points. There's no footwork deduction for 'sluggishness' or lack of speed. VDP did the spins according to the CoP guidelines and did not make any mistake that would cause him to get a deduction.

Buttle gets high GOE on his footwork and spins, and VDP doesn't---he gets mostly zeros. THAT IS ENTIRELY FAIR. What happened was Buttle did not complete his planned jumps, and he lost lots of points because of that. VDP completed all his jumps, and he did them all cleanly, and got credit for everything he did.

Buttle got very high PCS scores (IMO, too high, but that's another story) because presentation is his strong suit and he has great non-jump elements.
VDP got mediocre ones, because he is slow at times and he isn't a great musical interpreter. That is fair, too.

If Jeff had landed all his planned jumps, he would have scored 77.57 in TES and would have beaten Brian Joubert for the gold. And that is without a quad!

What you want is for CoP to reward the skaters YOU like, and punish the ones you don't. But it doesn't work that way. Skaters have to deliver, and those who do rack up the points. Those who don't wind up being endlessly disappointed.

Hey, I get where the points came from, and yes, absolutely, VDP deserved his points for the jumps, and it's entirely Buttle's own fault for not performing his. No doubt about it. Do I think Buttle should have beaten VDP? Not really. I think on this occasion, Buttle lacked enough jump content that it would have been unfair for him to have done so. Do I think VDP should have beaten Joubert and Mabee in the LP? That's a stickier question. That Mabee's 3x was downgraded does make a difference, of course.

I also like COP. Am I totally satisfied that it's perfected? No. There is absolutely nothing wrong with critiquing the current system. There should be a place to award negative GOE for being slow on footwork. Because let's face it, faster is most often harder, no? And indicative of more command and confidence. Much like high jumps with solid landing edges score better than small ones with scratchy landings.

As for what I'd like COP to reward I'd appreciate it if you'd stop with the personal attacks and putting words in my mouth that bear no relationship to my personal feelings, which you have no idea about. I would hope any judging system for skating would reward skaters who can do well in all aspects of the sport — and yeah, that includes both artistic and technical components. Whether they are skaters I like or not. For example, I've never been a fan of Plushenko, but it would be near impossible to argue for a system that did not reward the guy for the great skater he was/is. His particular style didn't appeal to me personally, but he certainly had one. He didn't just skate around and do jumps (though his were certainly superb). And there have been any number of other skaters that I respect but don't necessarily love. I don't dislike Kevin Van Der Perren. I try to make it a point not to dislike people I don't even know.

 

[Mathman]

I also like COP. Am I totally satisfied that it's perfected? No. There is absolutely nothing wrong with critiquing the current system. There should be a place to award negative GOE for being slow on footwork. Because let's face it, faster is most often harder, no? And indicative of more command and confidence. Much like high jumps with solid landing edges score better than small ones with scratchy landings.

That's an interesting point. As it is now, the judging system gives negative GOEs only for specific mistakes. If you just do a blah element (slow footwork, small jumps), your "punishment" is that you get 0 GOE and lose the opportunity of gaining extra points for doing the element well.

The place for "punishing" a lack-luster progam is in the PCSs. So I think Van der Perren's program was scored correctly. He did lose points relative to Joubert and Buttle by not getting any positive GOEs on his spins and step sequences, and he did get slammed with PCSs in the low 6's compared to the low 7's for Joubert and Buttle.