Michelle Kwan - Premature Crowning?

[Mathman]

Prematurely the cheesefest? Since the thread started before cheesefest?

Well, I can't say anything about that, because I don't want to be spoiled. So if anyone skated their sweet little pea-pickin' heart out, don't tell me until April 14th.

BTW, a big thanks to everyone who posted about spins on these threads, especially Brad and Hockeyfan who went to the trouble of backing up their points with the actual numbers from the competition. When I first started watching figure skating I didn't know a Lutz from a flip (in common with many U.S. skaters on the ladies' side, LOL). But I gradually learned something about this aspect of the sport.

In the last few days I have found out what a FCoSp2 spin is, and that it is worth 2.5 points, plus GOE factored at .5.

This is one virtue of the New Judging System, whatever its faults otherwise might be. It gives fans both casual and serious an opportunity to really find out why one skater was placed higher than another, besides, oh look how pretty she is.

Mathman

 

[LegalGirl82]

Well, I can't say anything about that, because I don't want to be spoiled. So if anyone skated their sweet little pea-pickin' heart out, don't tell me until April 14th.
Mathman

Mathman, FYI--If you're staying unspoiled until they air the cheesefest, you have to add on two more days. It airs April 16.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Mathman - I've figured skated for at least 10 years and I can not figure out what a
FCo Sp.Sp2 is. I can get forward outside camel to a sitzspin change sitzspin. Am I correct?

As to the analysis of spins, no one seems to give the deductions for travelling on spins. I presume, like flutzes, there are grades of travelling but they are so subjective if the judge don't see them or don't want to see them.

Joe

 

[gkelly]

There's no such thing as "FCo Sp.Sp2" or "FCoSp2."

The 2 at the end means it's level 2 for that type of spin.

There's FCSp2, which is a level 2 flying camel spin.

There's CoSp2, which is a level 2 combination spin without a change of foot. (I think this is what Mathman was referring to, since its base mark is 2.5.)

And there's CCoSp2, which is a level 2 combination spin with change of foot.

Any of these spins may be performed on either or both edges, if it's a forward spin it could be on a forward outside edge; and either of the combination spins may be entered from a flying entry. Those features could potentially add to the spin being called as level 2 or level 3, but they don't change the abbreviation.

The abbreviations are listed in the scale of values, which you can find in "JS 10 Singles - Scale of Values" at:
http://www.isu.org/vsite/vnavsite/page/directory/0,10853,4844-152055-169271-nav-list,00.html

 

[brad640]

I think the judges did deduct for travelling, but the rules say they can subtract for poor aspects and add for good aspects, so one judges GoE mark is an aggregate of the good and the bad they saw in a particular element. For instance, they might think Irina has great changes of position for a +3, but they could subtract 2 for travelling and the mark would be a +1.

 

[Mathman]

There's no such thing as "FCo Sp.Sp2" or "FCoSp2."

The 2 at the end means it's level 2 for that type of spin.

There's FCSp2, which is a level 2 flying camel spin.

There's CoSp2, which is a level 2 combination spin without a change of foot. (I think this is what Mathman was referring to, since its base mark is 2.5.)

There's no "Level 2 Flying Combination" spin?" I guess I didn't learn as much as I thought.

Hey, wait a minute. Isn't this what Michelle's eighth element is listed as? "FCoSp2, base value 2.5, GOE 0.43?"

BTW, I was just looking at the scores again. In the ladies LP there were a total of 95 spins (for some reason Poykio only did three instead of four). Of these 95, only three were level 3. Two by Irina (layback and combo) and one by Sasha, listed as "FCoSp3" (base value 3.0).

So there must be a lot more to it than just saying, guess I'll throw in a Biellmann or two and up the ante.

Mathman

 

[mzheng]

What's a real eye-opener is a comparison of Kwan's PCS scores vs. Elena Sokolova's scores. This shows the real impact of skating in the next-to-last group vs. the last group. Sokolova was the last skater in the final group, and let's face it---she has never been a 'presentation' star. Elena didn't have a clean SP (she double-footed the flip) and finished 6th in the SP behind Kostner and Arakawa.


[Size=-1]
7.50 7.75 7.00 7.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 6.75 7.50 7.50 7.75 7.75 SS-Kwan
7.00 7.00 7.00 7.50 7.50 7.50 8.00 7.50 7.00 7.25 7.50 7.50 SS-Sokolova

6.75 7.50 6.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 7.75 6.50 7.00 7.25 7.00 7.50 TR-Kwan
6.50 6.75 6.25 7.00 7.25 7.25 7.50 7.25 6.50 7.00 7.00 7.25 TR-Sokolova

7.00 7.50 7.00 7.50 7.00 7.25 8.00 6.75 7.50 7.25 7.50 7.50 P/E-Kwan
7.00 7.25 7.00 7.00 7.25 7.50 7.75 7.50 7.00 7.25 7.50 7.25 P/E-Sokolova

6.75 7.50 6.75 7.25 7.00 7.25 7.75 6.50 7.50 7.25 7.25 7.75 CH-Kwan
7.00 7.00 6.50 7.25 7.50 7.50 7.75 7.50 6.75 7.50 7.25 7.50 CH-Sokolova

6.75 7.75 7.25 7.50 7.25 7.50 8.00 6.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.75 IN-Kwan
7.00 7.00 7.00 7.25 7.25 7.50 7.75 7.50 7.00 7.50 7.25 7.50 IN-Sokolova
[/Size]

That was a joke/crap. . Especially judge #8. How can Sololova had better SS than Kwan beyond me. I would like to know who the judge is. Too bad its anonymouse.

 

[mzheng]

I think the judges did deduct for travelling, but the rules say they can subtract for poor aspects and add for good aspects, so one judges GoE mark is an aggregate of the good and the bad they saw in a particular element. For instance, they might think Irina has great changes of position for a +3, but they could subtract 2 for travelling and the mark would be a +1.

I thought a +3 on spin all positions in that spin have to be refined? And transitions between positions have to be smoothed?

 

[gkelly]

There's no "Level 2 Flying Combination" spin?" I guess I didn't learn as much as I thought.

Hey, wait a minute. Isn't this what Michelle's eighth element is listed as? "FCoSp2, base value 2.5, GOE 0.43?"

Hm, you're right, there are some listed in the long program protocols. I guess that was added and the scale of values hasn't been updated to include that element. Or else the callers were inputting a nonexistent code, but I don't know that the computer program would allow that.

But if the base value is the same as the CoSp2 regardless of the flying entry, the abbreviation really doesn't make much difference, the F just tells you one of the features used to make it level 2.

BTW, I was just looking at the scores again. In the ladies LP there were a total of 95 spins (for some reason Poykio only did three instead of four).

I see four listed for Poykio: elements 4, 5, 10, and 13.

Of these 95, only three were level 3. Two by Irina (layback and combo) and one by Sasha, listed as "FCoSp3" (base value 3.0).

So there must be a lot more to it than just saying, guess I'll throw in a Biellmann or two and up the ante.

Well, you can read the level descriptions ("JS 14 Singles - Level of Difficulty" at the link given above) for what's required to get each type of spin up to level 3.

Not that they couldn't use some clarification in some cases.

 

[Doggygirl]

The abbreviations are listed in the scale of values, which you can find in "JS 10 Singles - Scale of Values" at:
http://www.isu.org/vsite/vnavsite/page/directory/0,10853,4844-152055-169271-nav-list,00.html

This is an AWESOME cheat sheet. I keep in in my little binder with score sheets from different events, etc. Very helpful!!

Mathman, I'm so glad you and others are joining in the score sheet analysis fun. Judging still had it's problems, but I think it's SUCH a positive step in the right direction to have some sort of detail to look at. Now we have even more reasons to SCREAM about anonymous judges.

DG

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

.The abbreviations are listed in the scale of values, which you can find in "JS 10 Singles - Scale of Values" at:
http://www.isu.org/vsite/vnavsite/page/directory/0,10853,4844-152055-169271-nav-list,00.html

Thanks a bunch. I'll check that out.

Joe

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

That was a joke/crap. . Especially judge #8. How can Sololova had better SS than Kwan beyond me. I would like to know who the judge is. Too bad its anonymouse.

It could be incompetence. Let's hire experts to do the PCS and add them to the TSS with GOEs.

Joe

 

[gezando]

IMHO, the United States Figure Skating Association needs to score next year's competitive programs in a manner that accurately reflects what happens on the ice. It seems to me that the USFSA has such a love affair with Michelle Kwan that even a mediocre (for her) performance receives high marks.

Not unique to MK, they overinflate Cohen's mediocre programs too. Do you have any problems with MK's overall placement though?? If not, marks are just place holders.

 

[Mathman]

Mathman, I'm so glad you and others are joining in the score sheet analysis fun. Judging still had it's problems, but I think it's SUCH a positive step in the right direction to have some sort of detail to look at.

This one's for you, Doggygirl, LOL.

Thesis: If you do a more difficult element the judges will tend to reward you even more by giving you a higher GOE, whether you do it well or not.

To test this theory, here is a summary of all the spins (96 in all, including 4 from Poykio, LOL), averaged by level.

Level 1. There were 59 level 1 spins. The average GOE was .097.

Level 2. There were 34 level 2 spins. The average GOE was .253.

Level 3. There were 3 level 3 spins. The average GOE was .536.

Now you might think that these few tenths of a point would not mean much in the grand scheme of things. But if we are interested at statistical trends, let's look at the ratios:

If you increase your spin from level 1 to level 2 not only do you get the extra base value, but you can also expect an increase of 160% in GOE.

If you increase your spin from level 2 to level 3, you can expect, on the average, an increase of 112% in GOE.

And if you increase your spin from level 1 to level 3 all at once, the average GOE is 453% higher.

This supports the Joesitz theory -- in the subjective components the judges will be most impressed by the skaters doing the big tricks, and this will carry over into other judged categories where it ought to be irrelevant.

Or maybe it just means that the best skaters are doing the hardest tricks and doing them well.

Mathman

 

[fscric]

I just hope there's a way to send Mathman's statistics to Michelle. It seems that "perfect" has no stance in this new system, it's the level of difficulties that count. From Michelle's interview after the World, it's apparent she's aware of this but the argument is stronger being substantiated by statistics.

 

[Eeyora]

What Baloney. Sokolova ahead of Kwan in components. I agree anonomys judging must stop and lack of US coverage doesn't help.

 

[TNT2012]

Excuse me for being cynical, but why even bother calling it Figure Skating nowadays. Old tricks, new tricks, unusual tricks....just to get as many points as possible. With the elimination of figures as a competition requirement, it is almost painful to watch the plethora of skaters with wobbly edges, bad posture, and lumbering stroking get so highly rewarded just because they can do all these wonderful tricks. Yeah seriously....why do they still call it figure skating?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I think the judges did deduct for travelling, but the rules say they can subtract for poor aspects and add for good aspects, so one judges GoE mark is an aggregate of the good and the bad they saw in a particular element. For instance, they might think Irina has great changes of position for a +3, but they could subtract 2 for travelling and the mark would be a +1.

I agree with the rule but does it actually happen? and which judge does not aggregate the bad and the good? These are points, which need to be addressed. If judges names are shown, that would be a first step.

I do not believe there will be any reprimands in the coming months for the scoring in Moscow.

Joe

 

[brad640]

I agree with the rule but does it actually happen? and which judge does not aggregate the bad and the good? These are points, which need to be addressed. If judges names are shown, that would be a first step.

I do not believe there will be any reprimands in the coming months for the scoring in Moscow.

I agree that the rules are not being followed. If you read the rules for a +3 GoE for any element it is a very high standard. All the +1 and +2 seem inflated if you consider that a +3 base mark should be extremely rare. The judges do not have time to make all of these calculations on the spot, and that is why I agree with those who have posted that there should be a division of assignments among the judges so that different judges can focus exclusively on different aspects of the performance. I think that is what CoP demands.

There should be a reprimand for the judging of the ladies SP. No way did Irina deserve 1st after such a sloppy skate. I think she should have been 6th or 7th in the SP.

 

[apache88]

IMHO, the United States Figure Skating Association needs to score next year's competitive programs in a manner that accurately reflects what happens on the ice. It seems to me that the USFSA has such a love affair with Michelle Kwan that even a mediocre (for her) performance receives high marks.

Case in point: 2004 US Nationals. Kwan finished her short program several seconds after the end of the music, and she was not marked down for that mistake. Yes, the judges marked her down when she stumbled on her double axel, but she also should have received deductions for skating past the time limit. When Kwan did the same thing at the 2004 Worlds short program - skating past the time limit - the judges nailed her. Kwan and her coach were dumbfounded. Duh. Perhaps they should all read the rule book.

Another case in point: 2005 US Nationals. Kwan made two mistakes in her long prgram - doubling the second planned triple lutz and finishing after the music had stopped. Even she knew she had not skated her best. What did the lamebrain judges do - award her with a slew of 6.0s. Give me a break. OK, this was probably the last competition Michelle will ever compete in with the old 6.0 judging system, but a 6.0 is supposed to mean "perfection". Clearly, her long program was not perfect. What kind of message does that send?

Please understand that I admire Michelle. She's a classy lady and a fantastic figure skater, but she needs to work within a system that fairly judges her. Don't overscore her and don't underscore her. Score her fairly!

IMHO, of course.

I am a bit confused by your thoughts. When I saw "premature crowning", I thought I would read about how she was held up year after year. But apparently, you were just saying she was overmarked.

Now talk about premature crowning, no I don't think so, It's been agreed by many from the skating community that Michelle has deserved all the National titles, the only perhaps debatable one was 2000, still Sasha did fall in the LP right? Overall, she happened to skate the best compared to the rest to win each of the titles.

Overmarked? Yes, especially 2004 and 2005. But then again in 2004, Sasha was given 6.0 for a fall and many 5.9s for presentation! What would you expect Michelle to get then if not 6.0?