Men's Long Program

[Violet Bliss]

SC is the season debut for most skaters and they, Patrick for sure, are aiming to peak at Worlds. It's time to take risks testing the programs, gaining experience, program mileage and muscle memory as well as seeing what to adjust. Nobody was clean and it was not to be expected, especially with a program as difficult as Patrick's.

Bluebonnet, speaking of heroic, I watched the Brit's and the US videos of Patrick's LP and, besides his skating, the commentators were so impressed and awed by his fighting spirits, his determination and ability to pick his body and mind up quickly to go forward immediately with what he needed to do. (Quite a contrast with Caroline Zhang.) I also remembered a post here specifically complaining about such admiration for Chan. I started thinking about the character he displayed and what it might mean for his future and life outside skating. I realized this was exactly the kind of character you would want in somebody if your success or life should depend on him/her, be it an employee, or a partner for business or a dangerous expedition. He strives for excellence, pushes the limit, sets his goal high and never gives up with whatever stumbles along the way. That's why people admire high achievers in sports and will hire them for other fields of work or to be motivational speakers. It is a winner's mindset that is so essential and valuable for success no matter the endeavor.

 

[Art&Sport]

Interesting thoughts, SkateFiguring. I saw a video on youtube: "Why is figure skating so great?" in which a skater and some parents mentioned how being a skater is good training for life. I think that is true, and its probably also true about any number of sports... good training for learning how to handle victory and defeat. Actually, all figure skaters are first taught how to fall (in order to avoid hurting themselves when they do fall). It is also ingrained in skaters that they must get up quickly and continue on with their programs, no matter what. Obviously, that is not always easy to do, but there are any number of skaters who do get up and land every jump afterward, and sometimes even go on to win events.

Patrick is somewhat unique in that he has gotten away with falling/ making mistakes numerous times, especially in the last two years, and he has received very high scores in the process. I think this is largely a problem with the IJS scoring system, which is such a huge work-in-progress. It's like the system is crying, "I've fallen, and I can't get up."

 

[bekalc]

This is absurd! I've seen nothing the same between Lysacek and Patrick Chan!

Lysacek, and Carolina for that matter, deliberately took out the hardest jump/jumps simply because stratigically it was not good to put them in, and planned to work around them in order to get the best result. Patrick is working towards the hardest things - jumps and all. And try to make the impossible turn into possible. He's never planned to and never intentionally skated unclean. He set the highest goals to himself which obviously he couldn't reach if he had fall/falls or skated unclean. He gave out and is continueously giving out everything and is doing all he could to skate the best but sometimes he just fell or made mistakes. His act is, somewhat, heroic while the other guy's is .....not so heroic.

If you used Buttle's 2006 Olympics quad toe attempt or used Takahashi's 2010 Olympics quad flip attempt to compare with Patrick Chan, I'd find a little similarity even though they are still not the same. But definitely not Lysacek.

I didn't find Buttle's strategic quad fall particularly admirable or heroic. Hearing Sandra at the Olympic Games talk about how it was a great strategic move to go for a jump you know you didn't really have, was really upsetting. I'm glad when Buttle won worlds, he won it with a beautiful skate that he knew he could do well.

Same with Dai, who I love, couldn't feel sorry for him that he lost without the quad. The quad is a great jump, and I'd prefer a champ to have it. But Daisuke knew that jump wasn't there. I can say a lot about Evan but I actually dont' blame Evan for going with what he knew he could do well.

In terms of Patrick Chan part of my beef with him is he was doing too much. It felt lets cram the difficulty in regardless of how much I can execute because hey I'll have that buffer in TES and buffer in PCS. Once again athletes need to take risk and do hard elements, but doing what they can also realistically execute makes sense. Patrick going for 4 jumps he knew was inconsistent in the long seemed ridiculous. One new difficult element, two sure. But 4.. Meh. Meh. Meh.

Dornbush going for a quad that's new and maybe a little shaky. Okay. Makes sense and yeah his other jumps timing may be a little off. He's got to try it sometime. Patrick going for 2 quads when the quad (while great still a little inconsistent/new) and 2 triple axels when his triple axel is very inconsistent. That's just silliness.

 

[Violet Bliss]

Patrick is somewhat unique in that he has gotten away with falling/ making mistakes numerous times, especially in the last two years, and he has received very high scores in the process. I think this is largely a problem with the IJS scoring system, which is such a huge work-in-progress. It's like the system is crying, "I've fallen, and I can't get up."

What is unique about Patrick's get-up-and-go is that his programs are so intricate and difficult so any fall or even a stumble disrupts the flow and momentum he depends on to go on to the next element. It's much easier to continue on to simple stroking or gliding instead of non stop footwork leading to another jump. What experts and judges can appreciate that many fans don't is the extreme difficulty that Chan makes to look easy. He doesn't get away with falls because they all receive negative GOE (almost always -3 even though they can be offset by positve features of the jump), the mandatory deductions, as well as lower PCS even if many claim the opposite. The fact is when he is clean, he gets even higher PCS. He gets high total scores because of the total performances, including high value elements and excellent skating skills. That is the current scoring system, penalties for mistakes and rewards for excellence, and the sum of the values of all attempts determines the total score. It has raised the standard of figure skating, even if different aspects get raised unevenly and at different rates. In the end, the best meet the challenge to do the most technically difficult beutifully and artistically. Isn't that the ultimate for this athletic and esthetic sport?

 

[Art&Sport]

^^ Fair enough, if that's how you see it, SkateFiguring. I disagree with your views about Patrick Chan and IJS.

You're welcome. I have to agree with what you said, too. If this had been a 6.0 competition, all the top men would probably be around the same, with Patrick likely still winning the freeskate. Patrick might get 5.8, 5.9, Javier might get 5.8, 5.8, for example--but there was the idea that they were judging what had happened that night. If Patrick fell and Javier skated clean, it would go to Javier. With COP, it's like they're being judged for a fixed quality that doesn't change. If skater A has harder footwork in this year's program and always skates faster than skater B, he will always have that many more points than skater B. People complain when we say that Patrick has a certain # of falls advantage over the others--but it genuinely appears that he does.

This is not to criticize him as much as the CoP. You can figure out how to get as many points as possible and "game the system" a little. I like Evan Lysacek, but he did the same thing--he figured out how to win without doing a quad (and I understand the criticism of that). Patrick figured out how to win without skating clean. Carolina figured out how to win (or do well) without doing the hardest jumps.

So, Art, I hear ya and agree 100%

I'm pretty much in agreement with your thoughts here too, PoodlePal -- under 6.0 possibly the outcome might be similar, except I think Dai would have received 6.0s for his sp, and if scored fairly, Patrick would not have been as close to the top two in the sp. Patrick had problems in both sp and lp, and under 6.0, you are more heavily penalized for making mistakes in the sp. Politics, which some don't seem to figure into the equation under IJS, are always a factor (and have been under both systems).

To SkateFiguring, I don't think PoodlePal is saying that Evan is like Chan in any way as skaters, just that they are both adept at "gaming the system."

One of my pet peeves about IJS is the way skaters are just able to leave out jumps they don't like or are not good at. A great skater should be able to perform all the jumps. The points-gathering syndrome irks me something fierce!

If TPTB in figure skating were smart, they would have figured out a way to resolve the scoring/ judging problems under 6.0, without losing their "brand."

 

[dorispulaski]

. He doesn't get away with falls because they all receive negative GOE (almost always -3 even though they can be offset by positve features of the jump), the mandatory deductions, as well as lower PCS even if many claim the opposite. The fact is when he is clean, he gets even higher PCS.

Just a nitpick, but strictly speaking, all falls in singles are supposed to be given a GOE of -3, and it is a scandal when a judge fouls up and gives one a -2.

 

[trains]

I like to think of competition results like this in terms of an analogy to car racing:
Take a beautiful, shiny Cadillac with all the best options, with the most powerful motor perfectly tuned and running perfectly. Put it in a car race that it runs absolutely perfectly at top speed from beginning to end without a single waver or mistake against a Ferrari that spins out twice, veers off the road once and kicks up a bunch of dust, and the Ferrari still wins that race because it simply is a better car overall.
COP is like that in a way.

I'm not assigning car models to any specific skater so please don't jump on me!

 

[wallylutz]

Just a nitpick, but strictly speaking, all falls in singles are supposed to be given a GOE of -3, and it is a scandal when a judge fouls up and gives one a -2.

No, Doris, that's not correct. In Free Skating, falls do not carry a mandatory deduction of -3. The only requirement of falls and certain other errors is that the GOE has to be negative, that is -1, -2 or -3. If an error has a mandatory -3 GOE requirement, the ISU would indicate GOE-3 as a mandatory value that the judge must assigned but they happen only in SP and even then, not for falling on jumps but for jumps with less revolutions than required and/or lack of jump combo. Please review p. 12 of ISU Communication #1611 for more details. It's a common misconception that falls on jumps = automatic -3 GOE but they aren't, so the two judges who gave -2 on Chan's fall in SC was entirely within their rights to do so, no dispute about that whatsoever. On the other hand, the one judge who forgot to give Ksenia Makarova a -3 on her 3Lo+1T combo at the Skate America SP was in error. These errors happened a little too often and sometimes a judge would apply mandatory -3 when it shouldn't have (e.g. Chan's 2A in his SP at the 2011 Canadian Nationals). I make it sound like it's very easy to pin point who & who makes mistakes but when you are out there, nervous and etc., it is only human to make errors like this when you wouldn't when someone watches from the comfort of their own home with no pressure.

Personally, I find it hard to justify anything but -3 when someone falls on a jump but that's just my view. I can however see that if a skater fulfills several of the positive GOE bullet points prior to the fall (e.g. preceded by difficult connecting steps and/or FS movements such as spread eagle, hand over head variation, jump that is otherwise powerful with exceptional height & distance like Midori Ito) that it may be justified to give a fall other than -3. To me, I think it would have to have at least 3 or 4 recognizable positive GOE bullets prior to the fall for me to consider it for anything but -3. But that is a personal call, some people are more lenient, others, more strict.

 

[Violet Bliss]

Just a nitpick, but strictly speaking, all falls in singles are supposed to be given a GOE of -3, and it is a scandal when a judge fouls up and gives one a -2.

You may declare it a scandal, but it is not a judging rule violation but a proper application. According to ISU Communication No.1611:

The final GOE of an element is calculated considering first the positive aspects of the element that result in a starting GOE for the evaluation. Following that a Judge reduces the GOE according to the guidelines of poosible errors and the result is the final GOE of the element.

To establish the starting GOE Judges must take into consideration the bullets for each element. It is at the discretion of each Judge to decide on the number of bullets for any upgrade, but general recommendations are as follows:

Fall is one of the "Errors for which final GOE must be in the minuses" with -3 as the "Reduction/other" rather than the Final GOE. IOW, there is a mandatory reduction of -3 which may be mitigated by positive aspects according to the bullets in the guidelines, but the final GOE must be negative, i.e. -1, -2, or -3. In practice, judges simply give -3 with few exceptions. So a jump with a complex entry, good air position, and landed on the right edge before the skater slips and falls receives the same GOE as an ugly jump from the get-go.

If a fall must incur a mandatory final GOE of -3, then judges' "foul ups" of giving anything other than -3 would not have been allowed to stand.

One may disagree with the decree and even the whole system, but Chan does not "get away with falls" because the rules have been equally applied to all competitors. Tech Panel decides on the qualification and judges decide on the merits of each element and componant according to the guidelines and the computer does the calculation of the final Total Scores with inputs from 7 of the 9 judges after the elemination of the highest and lowest scores of each element and componant. Not a single judge can decide on or anticipate what the Total Score will be.

Oops, I see Wallylutz already addressed the issue.

 

[Violet Bliss]

I like to think of competition results like this in terms of an analogy to car racing:
Take a beautiful, shiny Cadillac with all the best options, with the most powerful motor perfectly tuned and running perfectly. Put it in a car race that it runs absolutely perfectly at top speed from beginning to end without a single waver or mistake against a Ferrari that spins out twice, veers off the road once and kicks up a bunch of dust, and the Ferrari still wins that race because it simply is a better car overall.
COP is like that in a way.

I'm not assigning car models to any specific skater so please don't jump on me!

The car models are like the costumes in a FS competition, they don't count but may have psychological impacts, in this case on the other drivers. If a car skids and sways and kicks up dust but finishes ahead of all others, then it wins, against a car that runs beautifully without a hitch but is too slow. In car racing, it is the finish that counts. In COP figure skating, it's the total score that counts.

 

[Bruin714]

Falls exponentially hurt the program. One fall is not such a big deal, but multiple falls disrupts the program immensely. I think the scoring should reflect that:

1 Fall = 1 point deduction
2 Falls = 4 point deduction
3 Falls = 9 point deduction
4 Falls = 16 point deduction

Ummm...16 point deduction for falls should be the ceiling, I think. Even Chan shouldn't win with 3 falls (9 point deduction) in a competitive field.

 

[Spun Silver]

The other day I downloaded what looked like current rules from ISU and found No. 1672 (amendments for 2011-2012) which does seem to mandate -3 on all falls. ? See pp 2-3.

No doubt I'm missing something though.

 

[Bluebonnet]

In terms of Patrick Chan part of my beef with him is he was doing too much. It felt lets cram the difficulty in regardless of how much I can execute because hey I'll have that buffer in TES and buffer in PCS. Once again athletes need to take risk and do hard elements, but doing what they can also realistically execute makes sense. Patrick going for 4 jumps he knew was inconsistent in the long seemed ridiculous. One new difficult element, two sure. But 4.. Meh. Meh. Meh.

Dornbush going for a quad that's new and maybe a little shaky. Okay. Makes sense and yeah his other jumps timing may be a little off. He's got to try it sometime. Patrick going for 2 quads when the quad (while great still a little inconsistent/new) and 2 triple axels when his triple axel is very inconsistent. That's just silliness.

Patrick is totally capable of 3 quads/compatition load. I don't know where this inconsistency idea about Patrick Chan's quads came from? He did two quads, one in combo at SC last year with one quad fell; two quads, one in combo at CoR with one quad fell; two quads at GPF beautifully (although one quad UR in SP); three quads, one in combo at Nationals, perfect; three quads, one in combo at 2011 worlds, perfect. It was such amazing and steady progress!

This year, he has kept the quad jump and 3A layout the same way as late last season. One quad in SP, and two quads with one in combo in LP. One 3A in each SP and LP. He fell on quad in SP because of the surprise slip shortly before the jump, and fell on first quad in LP but did a perfect quad combo right after. Given it is the new season and this is his first event, except that semi serious JO, I think he is going to be great in later competitions. His 3A is not that inconsistent. From what we've seen last season and this season, I think Patrick's 3A is much more consistent than Kozuka's 4T and much more reliable than Rippon's 3A and Takahashi's 4F.

Not doing the 4Ts and 3As that he's been doing would be truly as silly as Brezina coach's decision.

Falls exponentially hurt the program. One fall is not such a big deal, but multiple falls disrupts the program immensely. I think the scoring should reflect that:

1 Fall = 1 point deduction
2 Falls = 4 point deduction
3 Falls = 9 point deduction
4 Falls = 16 point deduction

Ummm...16 point deduction for falls should be the ceiling, I think. Even Chan shouldn't win with 3 falls (9 point deduction) in a competitive field.

I remember we've talked about this last year. Wondering why ISU hasn't considered this?

 

[wallylutz]

The other day I downloaded what looked like current rules from ISU and found No. 1672 (amendments for 2011-2012) which does seem to mandate -3 on all falls. ? See pp 2-3.

No doubt I'm missing something though.

Right, it's the same. Nothing has changed as far as a fall is concerned. If you open the pdf, you will see that Fall shows -3 for GOE but not GOE-3. Both communications are consistent with each other in this area. Only when you see the symbol "GOE-3" that it means mandatory -3. Anything else you see, -1, -2, -3 or -1 to -2 or -2 to -3 are all suggested values only. It can confusing and this topic was brought up last season as well but it seems that it needs a reminder every year to dispel this common misconception.

 

[Spun Silver]

^ Oh-kay. Thanks for the explanation, wallylutz.

 

[wallylutz]

Falls exponentially hurt the program. One fall is not such a big deal, but multiple falls disrupts the program immensely. I think the scoring should reflect that:

1 Fall = 1 point deduction
2 Falls = 4 point deduction
3 Falls = 9 point deduction
4 Falls = 16 point deduction

Ummm...16 point deduction for falls should be the ceiling, I think. Even Chan shouldn't win with 3 falls (9 point deduction) in a competitive field.

The question of mandatory deduction aside, whether or not all judges give -3 across the board for fall on a jump really has been a non-issue as far as the ISU is concerned. Because in the vast majority of cases, virtually all judges choose to give -3 for a fall, barring very few exceptions. In Pairs and Dance, it's not so clear cut because there are two people skating. But in Singles, it's safe to say 99% of the time, a skater would get -3 for a fall on a jump. Even in the rare cases that it's not -3 across the board, keep in mind that the highest and lowest GOE will get thrown out and that will usually make the final outcome identical as if it was -3 across the board. In the case of SC 2011, Chan's fall on the opening 4T received two -2 in lieu of -3 so one of the -2 remains but the actual impact is less than 0.1 of a point. In the scheme of Men's skating, the difference of 0.1 is pretty much inconsequential knowing that the Gold & Silver medalists at the event each score about 250 points. It's an extremely tiny, tiny difference but yet seemed to get blown out of proportion because most viewers are accustomed to counting falls but not the other things in the program. So why should the ISU feel the need to tweak something that is working just fine?

As far as the idea of exponential mandatory deductions for falls, I think the suggestion is worth considering though this proposal does run contrary to the long standing convention in figure skating. Even in the 6.0 era, the ISU, through its rules, make it clear that falls themselves are not impediments for someone to win. In other words, it is a long standing directive that falls are not to be given disproportional consideration and that dates way way before Chan was even born. Numerous World and Olympic Champions have won with falls in their program in the last two decades is a testament to this. Somehow, this suggestion seems to be aimed at one particular skater due to the recency effect of certain performances just comes across as a little malicious and unfair to me. And such proposal wouldn't really address the fairness of figure skating as a competition as a whole but rather a feel good / band-aid quick fix due to knee-jerk reactions. I think it's dangerous to give in to such impulses.

 

[Mathman]

I got a chuckle out of the media gushing that the men's event at Skate Canada featured four -- count 'em, four -- different kinds of quad attempts.

Get back to me when there are four different kinds of quads landed.

 

[Violet Bliss]

Not doing the 4Ts and 3As that he's been doing would be truly as silly as Brezina coach's decision.

Very well put. :thumbsup:

Patrick has confirmed my stated impression that he had grown up into a self assured young man. :thumbsup: He's not listening to everybody's opinion or be led easily into mispeaking these days. His own goal of raising the bar is aimed at Worlds with all the prior competitions as steps and practices towards its attainment. He does want to get to the GPF but says it matters not how prettily or uglily he gets there. Worlds title and Guiness records afford him this determined but relaxed approach. As he almost always delivers what he says, I look forward to near perfection in late season. He had hardly any training time this past summer, which has been tough on many skaters, not the least the Japanese, but he's capable of catching up in his speedy fashion. Patrick has a very steep learning curve and I admire how he consciously learns something important at every competition and puts it under his belt. Fans may be reactionary to every current situation but Patrich Chan is not. He has plans.

I remember we've talked about this last year. Wondering why ISU hasn't considered this?

I wonder what should be the name of a scoring system formed with all the fans' suggestions.

Let me say that if the fall penalties as suggested are put in place, Chan will not be the one to pay the price. New ways to put him away would then have to be designed.

 

[Bluebonnet]

I wonder what should be the name of a scoring system formed with all the fans' suggestions.

Why, we fans together often have wonderful ideas.arty:

 

[Blades of Passion]

I don't think a sliding scale for penalizing falls is a good idea at all. Elements aren't punished harshly enough when they are sloppy, that's the real problem.