Your conclusion contradicts your assessment.
Stojko pointed out spins as ones of Chan's weakness. Apparently there is some truth in it.
I don't think you have any understanding what Levels actually mean for spins in Figure Skating. First of all, you are attempting to compare the Levels on the CCoSp of two skaters from two different competitions who have different standards (national) and given out by two completely different panels. I have seen you post for a while and without a doubt, you are very smart person and well versed in stats, so surely enough, you can see the danger of making such comparison even assuming the grading here are directly comparable, which - they aren't at all, just common sense here, no need to be a skating expert of anykind. But more importantly,
Levels in Spins as defined by the ISU has nothing to do with the quality or the execution of the spins. Whatever Elvis Stojko may have said or not said about spins being a weakness of Chan is completely irrelevant. On a side note, I don't recall Stojko ever say anything close to what you attributed to him, so if you could please provide the source of your information, that will be greatly appreciated for a follow up discussion. Levels in Spins, as called by the Technical Panel is determined by the number of Features that the skater achieves during a given spin. The following is a list of the Features, as defined by the ISU, for the purpose of determining Levels in Spins:
1) A difficult variation in a basic or (for spin combinations only) in an intermediate position
2) Another difficult variation in a basic position which must be significantly different from
the first one and: ● spin in one position with change of foot – on different foot than the first one ● spin combination without change of foot – in different position than the first one ● spin combination with change of foot – on different foot and in different position than the
first one
3) Change of foot executed by jump
4) Backward entrance/Difficult variation of flying entrance/Landing on the same foot as
take-off or changing foot on landing in a Flying Sit Spin
5) Clear change of edge in sit (only from backward inside to forward outside) or camel 6) All 3 basic positions on both feet
7) Both directions immediately following each other in sit or camel spin
8) At least 8 rev. without changes in pos./variation, foot or edge (camel, sit, layback,
difficult upright), counts twice if repeated on another foot
In other words, some of the greatest spinners in the world like Lucinda Ruh could very well get Level 1 on her spins if she does not follow the ISU guidelines simply for not having enough revolutions on each foot or the change of edge not being clear enough or the change of foot wasn't executed with a jump.
While the Tech Panel calls the Levels, it is the Judges who determine the quality of execution. In other words, to get a truer sense of the quality of a spin element, the average GOE is actually a more relevant indicator than the Level, which represents a validation of how many Features were met in that spin, not the quality of the spin. I am sorry you never understood this important difference and continued to run around and cite the difference in the Level as a "weakness" or any of its variation and synonyms.
Finally, when I said "technically superior in
every way", I certainly didn't say "technically superior in
every element". You then claimed I contradicted myself by citing the Level on one Spin, which was called by Technical Panel - not the judges. A judge may very well feel an X spin was superior by awarding higher GOE to reflect that over a Y spin regardless of the Level assigned, which is outside the judge's control. Plus, if you really want to split hair, you could also point to the fact that both skaters receive mostly +2 from me, with few exceptions for most of their elements so how do I support my assertion that "Chan is technically superior in every way"? Well, the reality is the assignment of GOE also follows a similar "Features" based bullet point system. Because there are only 3 choices for positive GOE, if a skater's element falls into a lower range of +2 zone vs. another who is on the high end of the +2 zone but insufficient for +3, they will all end up with +2. It doesn't mean that the quality of their elements the same, that would be an incorrect inference. You could say they are more or less comparable but when adding all 7 to 13 elements together, the overall GOE tend to reflect the difference that is difficult to illustrate in each and every single element on its own. Hence a skater who is technically superior overall or in every way, will still end up with a much higher TES even when the Base Value of their elements are almost identical, as is the case here between these two skaters.
Since you are Chinese, I have 4 words for you to take away which I hope you are well versed enough in your own culture to understand, otherwise what a shame: 班門弄斧
Think about this, before you post again next time.
