Men's Short Program

[Blades of Passion]

And Joubert?

13th at the very best. He certainly did NOT deserve to be in the top 12. His non-jump elements are not strong, his performance and program are not particularly inspiring, and his jumping was weaker than everyone I listed as the top 12 as well. His Quad probably even deserved to be downgraded, making it that much more obvious he did not deserve to be in the top 12. Look at how Kevin Van Der Perren's attempt at the Quad was downgraded. From what I saw, Joubert's certainly was no better rotated. Definitely feels like unfair favoritism muddying the waters there - Joubert doesn't get his Quad downgraded because of his long history of doing that jump, whereas Van Der Perren is not regarded as highly and so he is hammered.

 

[herios]

For some perspective — Jeremy Abbott finished 14th in his first Worlds SP in 2008, so Dornbush (11th) and Miner (13th) has already one-upped him. If both do well in the FS, both of them have the potential to finish better or at least match Jeremy's placement in his debut (11th).

!

Mrs. P, incorrect. Jeremy Abbott finished 11th at his first worlds, and not 14th.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

She's referring to his placement in the SP.

 

[Mrs. P]

Mrs. P, incorrect. Jeremy Abbott finished 11th at his first worlds, and not 14th.

Please read my post again. I said Worlds SP. Not overall. To Jeremy's credit, he finished 10th in the FS to finish 11th overall. The FS will tell the tale, of course. But I only make that point for some perspective.

ETA: IP beat me to it!

 

[Tonichelle]

What was it that Michal ate? His coach put out a plate with something yellowish on it..

I would assume Oranges, not sure why but a lot of athletes eat them after they come off the ice/run/whatever

 

[lavender]

I wish that I still liked Patrick in general. I do enjoy his skating. I just don't root for him and his mouth but he's so smooth on his blade.

 

[herios]

Please read my post again. I said Worlds SP. Not overall. To Jeremy's credit, he finished 10th in the FS to finish 11th overall. The FS will tell the tale, of course. But I only make that point for some perspective.

ETA: IP beat me to it!

OK, you are right. WE shall see how they do tomorrow, but for their debut, not bad at all, it is just a deep field as many already mentioned.

 

[MikiAndoFan#1]

Daisuke was amazing! I don't get his scores at all. Takahiko was also good. Too bad for the 3A.

 

[Serious Business]

For all the kvetching about Patrick's +GOE on even his jumps and spins, let's review what the actual rules are:

FOR + 1: 2 bullets
FOR + 2: 4 bullets
FOR + 3: 6 or more bullets

The bullet points for jumps:

1) unexpected / creative / difficult entry
2) clear recognizable steps/free skating movements immediately preceding element
3) varied position in the air / delay in rotation
4) good height and distance
5) good extension on landing / creative exit
6) good flow from entry to exit including jump combinations / sequences
7) effortless throughout
8) element matched to the musical structure

For his 4t/3t, I give him 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, enough for a +3 (the judges give him mostly +2, one +3)

For his 3axel, I give him 4, 5, 6, 8 enough for a +2 (the judges gave him mostly +2)

For his 3flip, I give him 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 enough for a +3 (the judges gave him mostly +2, two gave him +3)

Taking into account that he didn't make any errors that would subtract from the +GOE, and individuals may disagree on some of those particular bullet points, the results seem right to me.

The same bullet point system applies to spins, but the bullet points are as follow:

1) good speed or acceleration during spin
2) ability to center a spin quickly
3) balanced rotations in all positions
4) clearly more than required number of revolutions
5) good position(s) (including height and air position in flying spins)
6) creativity and originality
7) good control throughout all phases
8) element matched to the musical structure

For his change of foot/position spin, I give him 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, enough for a +2 (most of the judges gave him +2, two gave him +1 and one gave him +3)

For his flying sit spin, I give him 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 again for a +2 (all but 2 judges gave him +2, with one giving him +1 and the other giving him +3). His entrance into the spin was great, but that's not one of the bullet points.

For his camel spin, I give him 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 one more time for a +2 (all but 3 judges gave him a +1, with three judges giving him a +2)

Once again, I don't have a problem with the results. One can quibble whether he had bullet points 1 and 6 on some of the spins, , which would put them in +3, or take off some bullet points, which would put him at +1. And that's how the results play out. With the spins, Chan may not have the greatest speed or most creative positions, but those are only two of the bullet points. Chan does have the exceptional ability to immediately center and balance his spins. That may not be as flashy to some people, but it's an important thing the COP looks for, too.

 

[Bluebonnet]

My response was to skfan's original post which I'd do the same if I see such posts again. I was not the one who's mentioned Abbott in this thread first. Whew... so defensive...

Mrs.P, I like your optimistic spirit!

For the record, Dornbush and Miner did great in their first Worlds debut! Bradley was as I thought. No ill wishes. Hope everyone does well tomorrow! Most of all, I wish Chan could skate to the victory!

 

[wallylutz]

He received +1.86 for both his Quad Combination and Triple Axel and +1.5 for his Flip. The GOE grades were indeed mostly +2's and he DID get a few absurd 3's as well for elements (one for the Quad combination and two for the Triple Flip). I was completely correct. He received a total of +1.82 more points on his jumps than he deserved. Patrick Chan's Quad is not huge and the rotation could be more wholly completed in the air before landing. There were not any incredibly outstanding transitions before or after the Quad combo or the Triple Axel either. +1 GOE is all those jumps deserved. The Flip deserved +2 because the quality there was wonderful but certainly not +3. He would have needed to do it in Tano position or somesuch to deserve that high of a mark.

His combination spin utilizes easy positions and not an incredible amount of speed. +1 is the absolute most he would have possibly deserved there and a 0 GOE would really be fair too. He completed a Level 4 change of foot combination spin satisfactorily. It didn't sing or amaze. He received a +3 from one judge for this element and a ton of +2's. So there was an extra half point bonus right there. His change-of-foot Camel received some unwarranted +2's as well considering his average positioning and speed and again would have been fine with getting a 0 GOE. That puts his tech score at at least 2.5 points over what it should have been for all the elements I've talked about up to this point. His Flying Sit received an average of +2 GOE (with yet another +3 from a judge, that got thrown out) and that was probably too generous as well, but I won't get picky there. All in all, I would have scored his performance at an 89.

Reading your explanation, I get the impression that you and I were watching two different performances entirely. For example:

Patrick Chan's Quad is not huge and the rotation could be more wholly completed in the air before landing.

This is a really weird observation given that it had so much height and flow on landing that allowed the 2nd jump to be even higher than the 1st one - it would not have been possible if the 1st jump was slightly short on rotation as any rotation on ice would have eat the flow and causing the 2nd jump to be scratchy or rather small. To make this really short, I find your explanation overall to be inconsistent and lacking in supportive evidence with what actually happened. In the case of your justification for the CCSp3, even if we accept your observation at face value and that the positioning of the spin was just average (which I don't agree but assume it is for the moment), you also completely omit the fact that there are other areas which other judges could evaluate the element on.

You are entitled to your opinion, though keep in mind the judges too are entitled to theirs and you shouldn't hold your opinion in such an aggressive manner and come across as though only your viewpoint can possibly be valid whereas others must be wrong.

 

[wallylutz]

For all the kvetching about Patrick's +GOE on even his jumps and spins, let's review what the actual rules are:

FOR + 1: 2 bullets
FOR + 2: 4 bullets
FOR + 3: 6 or more bullets

The bullet points for jumps:

1) unexpected / creative / difficult entry
2) clear recognizable steps/free skating movements immediately preceding element
3) varied position in the air / delay in rotation
4) good height and distance
5) good extension on landing / creative exit
6) good flow from entry to exit including jump combinations / sequences
7) effortless throughout
8) element matched to the musical structure

For his 4t/3t, I give him 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, enough for a +3 (the judges give him mostly +2, one +3)

For his 3axel, I give him 4, 5, 6, 8 enough for a +2 (the judges gave him mostly +2)

For his 3flip, I give him 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 enough for a +3 (the judges gave him mostly +2, two gave him +3)

Taking into account that he didn't make any errors that would subtract from the +GOE, and individuals may disagree on some of those particular bullet points, the results seem right to me.

The same bullet point system applies to spins, but the bullet points are as follow:

1) good speed or acceleration during spin
2) ability to center a spin quickly
3) balanced rotations in all positions
4) clearly more than required number of revolutions
5) good position(s) (including height and air position in flying spins)
6) creativity and originality
7) good control throughout all phases
8) element matched to the musical structure

For his change of foot/position spin, I give him 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, enough for a +2 (most of the judges gave him +2, two gave him +1 and one gave him +3)

For his flying sit spin, I give him 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 again for a +2 (all but 2 judges gave him +2, with one giving him +1 and the other giving him +3). His entrance into the spin was great, but that's not one of the bullet points.

For his camel spin, I give him 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 one more time for a +2 (all but 3 judges gave him a +1, with three judges giving him a +2)

Once again, I don't have a problem with the results. One can quibble whether he had bullet points 1 and 6 on some of the spins, , which would put them in +3, or take off some bullet points, which would put him at +1. And that's how the results play out.

This is the right way to justify your viewpoint and it is also far more objective. Blades of Passion gets carried away too easily in his own obstination and loses his objectivity.

 

[Bluebonnet]

Great post, Serious Business!

 

[Serious Business]

These bullet points are partly subjective, wallylutz, Blades of Passion can argue some of those bullet points away that I gave to Chan, although some I maintain are unimpeachable (such as Chan's flow in and out of jumps and his quick centering on spins). BoP is absolutely within the rules to give Chan less +GOE. But that's why there is a giant panel of judges, and the high and low scores are thrown away. I think BoP is a judge? And if he was on the panel, most of his GOE for Chan would be thrown out. But then, so would most of mine if I was a judge which I am not (although I would give more +GOE to all skaters than most judges do. I think most judges are stingier beyond the requirements of GOE deductions in handing out the +'s).

 

[wallylutz]

I would assume Oranges, not sure why but a lot of athletes eat them after they come off the ice/run/whatever

Carbohyrdate boost. Their activity is so intense, therefore, orange is the preferred way of replenishing energy quickly. Skaters, like other athletes, are also concerned about muscle loss, though to a lesser extent than most other sports. Your body, after intense activity, will start to decompose your own muscle for energy if you don't replenish the lost energy.

 

[wallylutz]

These bullet points are partly subjective, wallylutz, Blades of Passion can argue some of those bullet points away that I gave to Chan, although some I maintain are unimpeachable (such as Chan's flow in and out of jumps and his quick centering on spins). BoP is absolutely within the rules to give Chan less +GOE. But that's why there is a giant panel of judges, and the high and low scores are thrown away. I think BoP is a judge? And if he was on the panel, most of his GOE for Chan would be thrown out. But then, so would most of mine if I was a judge which I am not (although I would give more +GOE to all skaters than most judges do. I think most judges are stingier beyond the requirements of GOE deductions in handing out the +'s).

How you get to the answers is more important than the answers themselves. I don't have to agree with your assessment, but I want to see the logic in how you get to your answers.

 

[Tonichelle]

Carbohyrdate boost. Their activity is so intense, therefore, orange is the preferred way of replenishing energy quickly. Skaters, like other athletes, are also concerned about muscle loss, though to a lesser extent than most other sports. Your body, after intense activity, will start to decompose your own muscle for energy if you don't replenish the lost energy.

good to know, but are oranges the only way to do this? or just the best way? or?

 

[chloepoco]

Great job, Patrick! And Nobu, and Daisuke! Good luck to all the men in the LP....may they all have the skate of their dreams!

 

[wallylutz]

good to know, but are oranges the only way to do this? or just the best way? or?

Not the only way but the preferred way for several reasons:

- Easy to chew / consume than most other fruits, say apple for example
- Easy to fit into meal plans that skaters have to observe religiously
- Carb in orange are easily absorbed but unlike pure sugar, it won't be so simple such that it will be easily converted into stored fat
- Has no fat and doesn't interfere with protein count, which athletes count rigorously, especially figure skaters who need to keep really lean body otherwise they can't jump

But it's not the only thing. Like electrical cables, the most widely used metal is actually cooper but you could have actually used silver or even gold, which would also be excellent metals for this purpose but it's not used because it's expensive.

In other sports, especially for men who need to maintain huge muscle masses, the preferred method is protein shake during training. Men in figure skating don't fall into this category, that's why you don't see them do it.

 

[Blades of Passion]

This is a really weird observation given that it had so much height and flow on landing that allowed the 2nd jump to be even higher than the 1st one - it would not have been possible if the 1st jump was slightly short on rotation as any rotation on ice would have eat the flow and causing the 2nd jump to be scratchy or rather small. To make this really short, I find your explanation overall to be inconsistent and lacking in supportive evidence with what actually happened.

Chan's Quad did not have "so much height". Check out the Quads of eras past to see a lot of height on a Quad. Lambiel gets up higher in his Quad, for example. Or from this very competition, Tomas Verner. As for the second part of what I was saying, there is something called ballon where a jump suspends in the air and the rotation is completed before dropping back down. That is the IDEAL quality every jump should have. Patrick's Quad does not have that quality. He is still turning on the landing.

I'm also not sure where you get the idea of the 2nd jump of a combination automatically being scratchy or small if the first jump is a little "short". It's actually the opposite. The first jump of a combination being a little short (as in, not landed 100% completely backwards) is actually beneficial, if landed properly, because it allows your body to reset on the landing without overrating to get back up into the second jump.

For all the kvetching about Patrick's +GOE on even his jumps and spins, let's review what the actual rules are

The rules are guidelines and I disagree with your assessment of those bullet points anyway. With regard to his Quad combination, for example -- Matched to the musical structure? No, not especially. Difficult entrance? No. Creative exit or an excellent extension on the landing? Don't see that either. I would not give it the "height" bullet point either, as I talked about above. It's ridiculous that there is only one bullet point for height and distance of a jump in the first place. Luckily the listed rules are guidelines. Those who know about jumps are allowed to quantify them properly.