hockeyfan228 said:
I don't think that 6.0 was immune from getting points for trying; the mistakes were a different set of mistakes. Underrotated jumps and combinations that stopped dead with little flow got plenty of unearned credit under 6.0, while mistakes on jumps negated other elements, like spins, footwork, spirals, missing choreography, lots of rest stops, etc. CoP values the ability to rotate more than the ability to land. That's a specific decision that the ISU made, while in the past, the judges were free to create their own relative values.
The scores for technical elements are cumulative. PCS are entirely based in overall impression.
While I totally agree with this assessment of where things stand, I also can't help but think that unsuccessfully completed elements are not getting penalized enough. I know it's a fine balance between encouraging skaters to try harder skills and the desire to see good, well-done elements, but right now it seems that skaters are putting things in programs they know they can't do just because even when the fail they know they'll get some serious points for them.
Which leads me specifically to my comments about the pairs event at SA. Just saw it this weekend on CBC and a few things struck me. First, let me say I LOVED Putnam and Wirtz. I've really liked this team since I first saw them several years ago - thought they had that elusive "something" that could take them places - but as the years ticked by with little improvement evident, I started to wonder. But it all came together for them at SA. Sure, still some improvements to be made, but man did they SELL that skate. I have never seen them - or virtually any other team actually - look like they were having that much fun out on the ice. WOW is all I can say. I can't wait for Canadians.
As for the younger Canadian team, Dube and Davison, they were wonderful as well. So much potential there. Such effortless unison. They looked right at home in the senior ranks.
Now, onto the bad.... The top pairs looked like they were skating a series of elements. Where are the great programs? They're now so cluttered with STUFF as the teams try to squeeze every possible extra point out of every element that the programs on the whole look messy, have little to no feeling, are riddled with errors and almost entirely without musicality. I couldn't have agreed more with commentator Paul Martini when he mentioned the almost complete lack of a decent-looking death spiral out of any of the teams as they attempt to come up with some kind of new variation on the move - it is still nice, and the points should reflect this - to see a truly good, classic position as opposed to some half-assed, if difficult, "new" twist. Further, I've noticed the lack of decent pairs side by side spins and am also wondering if this isn't another area where pairs are encouraged to have lots and lots of changes of position to gain extra marks, even if they lose all synch with each other as they try something they can't really do.
The Zhangs actually looked as if they had improved their artistic skating - such a robotic couple before - huge tricks, but robotic. That said, their program still struck me as a series of elements rather than a cohesive whole. Unfortunately this seems to be the general trend in pairs right now, and I have no doubt they'll be challenging for the podium in Torino.
Obertas and Slavnov - Their freeskate was dreadful. I really liked this team and thought they had great potential when I first saw them several years ago, however IMO they have never progressed significantly. They are a case in point of a team jamming their FS full of stuff at the expense of the artistry. Their free last year was a travesty and this year's isn't any better from what I could tell. I would go so far as to say their choreography is a waste of what could be a classically beautiful team.
I can't wait to see what they landed.
The other Canadian pair, Dube & Davison were delightful to watch too. Hey, I also wanted to see Evora & Ladwig. 4 pairs in one hour of coverage? Disgraceful!
:disapp: 
