Oh but it's all fair because the one with the most points wins, that's how you know who did the best
(don't look behind the curtain, Dorothy! lol Srsly IJS = smoke and mirrors).
The Judging Controversy Thread
- Thread starter Andre Smith
- Start date
Oh but it's all fair because the one with the most points wins, that's how you know who did the best
(don't look behind the curtain, Dorothy! lol Srsly IJS = smoke and mirrors).
Mao was #27 in TES in SP. You think her PCS should be lower than Isadora's from Brazil, Glebova's from Estonia or V. Helgesson from Sweden?It's ISU that would be humiliated when now we know how Mao skated FS. If all scores Base Value, GOE, PCS mattered to all skater fairly, Mao's PCS result in FS would be 1st, not Yuna's. But then Yuna would get bronze. Judges secure her silver medal, if you are still looking for the controversy.
Yuna was the only OGM contender who entered the Games with #9 program of difficulty. No one did the same. Yuzu, Patrick, Adelina, Caro, pair skaters, dancers? They all challenged. Yuna didn't have a choice. She said that she did everything she could in Sochi. It was her top. She had to count on her reputation points in PCS and GOE because she couldn't skate more difficult program. She lost. This strategy lost. I see its fair game.
Yuna never expected a second OGM. She didn't have to prove to anybody in this world why she deserved her first OGM again. She came back to show her best and she did, and that mattered to her, whether or not she lost. This isn't a strategy as you claimed - she didn't come to Sochi to win. But many of us know her best shouldn't have been beaten. But we are questioning how she and other skaters were scored as compared to the Russians. Why did Julia receive higher PCS than Mao? Why did Adelina receive the same PCS as Yuna, and higher than Caro's? I understand the judges showed little discrepancies in their PCS scoring, but why the discrepancies in the scoring between skaters?
Oh and another point to make. How did you arrive with #9 in terms of difficulty of Yuna's programs? Not even taking into account Yuna's level 3 awarded step sequence in the FS here's what I have calculated:
BV of SP and LP of -
Yuna: 88.92
Adelina: 91.86
Mao: 90.22 (surprisingly higher than Yuna's!)
Caro: 88.98 (you were right to say Caro's progs were tougher than Yuna's, but to a negligible extent)
Gracie: 92.68 (higher than Adelina's!)
Julia: 87.65
Yuna's ranked #5 actually. But this argument of using BV is totally inadequate. Why did Gracie lose to Adelina? Gracie completed her 3F in the FS but she fell on it. You could say Yuna came to Sochi with a #5 ranked difficulty program and she was ready to execute them.
:thumbsup:
I♥Yuna;889395 said:
I thought the points system has a relatively well-defined set of rules for how to give out the points? At least for the technical elements and GOE's anyway. I think the PCS guidelines are likely very fuzzy though, or at least, very opaque.
I'd replace #1 with the lack of accountability for how judges score skaters. Removing anonymity would go a long way toward that, but I don't think it'd be enough if judges still didn't have to defend their marks, i.e. listing out why they gave +1 vs +2 GOE for a particular jump, or level 3 vs level 4 spin, etc. when asked to do so. Simply seeing some numbers is not a good feedback system for telling skaters what areas of their skating need improvement, nor verifying if the judging was done correctly.
Protocols can't resolve this question but they can raise this question and they fairly do.
So the question is... is it good for the business or it isn't?
This is the only answer I'm actually waiting for given that no serious reforms are scheduled thus far.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
Yulia's 3f was flawless in her FS. I can't defend much else. Give her credit though...she fell on the 3f in the SP and absolutely stomped the one in the FS. It was one of the few bright spots in her skate and a strong showing of character. How can you pick her for that of all things.
Yulia's 3f was flawless in her FS. I can't defend much else. Give her credit though...she fell on the 3f in the SP and absolutely stomped the one in the FS. It was one of the few bright spots in her skate and a strong showing of character. How can you pick her for that of all things.
Did I pick on Julia or did I pick on the judges scoring? Maybe I shouldn't have phrased that Julia was overscored - but that the judges overscored her 3F.
I agree Julia did a great job in executing the 3F in the FS when she made a terrible fall on it in the short - she's strong for sure.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2010
Julia's triple flip was just fine. Was it a better jump than Kim and Kostner though? Obvious no. That is the only point at hand. Adelina's was not better either. Lets say the judges were given glasses to see Kim and Kostner instead of Julia and Adelina and Julia and Adelina instead of Kim and Kostner when they were skating. We all know who would now get the higher GOE for the triple flip, and by a much larger margin than the original way around. 
My point is that the person who wins isn't always the one who has the highest BV. At 2012 Worlds, Ashley Wagner actually had the highest BV but came in third in the FS (and fourth overall). Carolina Kostner who won was No. 6 in BV.
Denis Ten, who won the FS in 2013 Worlds had the 10th highest BV out of all the men.
And I guess Jason Brown is arrogant too since he had the audacity to win the FS at U.S. Nationals with the fourth highest base value! Or that he managed to get into the final group at the Olympics in 6th despite an 11th place BV.
It's par for the course, especially for Scott. Scott even in Vancouver tried to downplay Mao's 3A. While Yuna won fair and square, it is true that 3A was way undervalued at the time. Scott went onto "explain" that 3A+2T is 5 ½ turns and 3Lz+3T is 6 turns (i.e. 6 > 5.5) in order to diminish the historic nature of Mao's achievement. Low GOE or not, there isn't any other woman in history who registered 3A's in Olympics. Scott's downplaying Mao's monumental achievement was appalling.
Johnny and Tara have their own self-delusions that we all are aware of. Plus they don't yet have their own voices and can be replaced by someone else. (I hope Tara finds something else to do)
I can't stop watching Adios Nonino. Yuna is truly amazing. The. Queen.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2010
Tara is jealous of someone like Yu Na Kim since she is considered a much greater champion than she ever was. She was probably thrilled to see her lose, and feel even more vastly inferior than she already did (although in reality Yu Na is an even bigger legend and considered even greater with her bogus false loss than if she had won her 2nd OGM so her feelings are misguided). She knows someone like Sotnikova will never be considered half the skater Tara was, so she doesnt give a darn about her victory (never mind credability of skating judging and skating, self obsessed Tara would never care about those trivial things now that she is retired ). Tara always had an inferiority complex and was jealous of people seen as better than her. That is why she and her crazy mother were always so jealous and obsessed with Kwan. Just beating Kwan in a few competitions was not enough, she could never accept that to the public and to the Dick Button's of the world Kwan was still a much greater, more impactful, and far more popular skater than she was. It persisted for years with her own mom moaning endlessly about Michelle being given the honor of awarding the Team USA jacket to the president at the 2002 Games saying "what an awful thing to do to my poor Tara" and bemoaning to the press how Tara cried her eyes out over hearing that.
). Tara always had an inferiority complex and was jealous of people seen as better than her. That is why she and her crazy mother were always so jealous and obsessed with Kwan. Just beating Kwan in a few competitions was not enough, she could never accept that to the public and to the Dick Button's of the world Kwan was still a much greater, more impactful, and far more popular skater than she was. It persisted for years with her own mom moaning endlessly about Michelle being given the honor of awarding the Team USA jacket to the president at the 2002 Games saying "what an awful thing to do to my poor Tara" and bemoaning to the press how Tara cried her eyes out over hearing that.Oh of course the point system it's well defined, I give you that. I just don't think it's well thought out in some areas.
They are. I'm working on a post for the improvement thread, so I've been looking it over quite a bit. Imo, the definitions are at times irrational, and the criteria are simply not concrete enough, and not objective enough. Too much room both for error and cheating.
It's definitely a part of the problem, but to me, it's not the root of it..
I promise, if you correct the ambiguous language of the pcs, and make it mandatory for judges to defend their marks, you will start to see pcs scores that make sense. Asking the judges to defend their marks (pcs in particular) under the current text will not work, because the language is giving them too much room to allow their biases to dictate the scores. The criteria need to be so concise, so concrete, so starkly devoid of subjectivity, that judges who overinflate will not have a leg to stand on when it comes time to defend their marks. Unless this is done, the pcs score will always be the fudge factor they can use to cheat, and will always be skewed towards the veterans, even when the judges are trying to be fair.
I agree.
Kim's supporters are guilty of that very same thing.
I found it. The magic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TESfQwyXvI
You couldn't have made this **** up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TESfQwyXvI
You couldn't have made this **** up.
I think it's kinda comical how you accuse others of bias and don't see the glaring, colossal prejudice in your conviction that no one in this universe could possibly, ever, under ever circumstances bested Kim.
One of the infuriating things about GOE is that there is actually relatively well-defined bullet points you have to meet for a certain GOE. So often judges just irrationally add in GOE and I'm not just talking about Sochi in particular (although it was egregious here - and not just to Adelina or Yulia's benefit!) If you look at the GOE guidelines for jumps, +3 GOE should be extremely rare. yet it's often handed out like candy, especially if your jump is "big", which ignores the fact height is but one bullet point for GOE. If you go strictly by the guidelines, a lot of the top women shouldn't be getting more than +1 for most of their jumps and only +2 for their very best. Similarly for spins, it's insanely difficult to get +3. Realistically, again if you go by the guidelines, the only senior women who deserves a +3 GOE on any spin is when Yulia does her layback exceptionally well or she pulls off her final combination spin without traveling excessively.
I don't really see a way to fix this other than to shame judges into accountability (which requires removing anonymity), but I don't see that happening.
I found it. The magic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TESfQwyXvI
You couldn't have made this **** up.
I personally don't believe Adelina should have won, but am I the only one who thinks her Sochi performance was quite superior to her TEB performance? Everyone keeps showing this video like it proves something, but if anything it seems to me her Oly score should have been quite a bit higher?
It's true I favour yuna to adelina but yuna wouldn't have won even if she did a 3lo and a 2a-3t - she wouldn't have gained a 5 point advantage over adelina. Isn't that wrong?
