U.S. Ladies Prediction & Speculation Thread

[silverlake22]

From what you said, she deserved 60 points, but everyone else got to keep their inflated score? If you don't agree with the placement, then what are you saying? :sheesh:

I just meant hypothetically. And yes everyone else would keep their inflated scores unless they had a borderline UR jump that was given full credit, which appeared to be only Miki and Rachael. 60 points for a SP with a 2lz is a pretty high score.

 

[Mathman]

I think Rachael was fairly scored at the Olympics, except for the two downgrades. On the first one, the judges evidently disagreed with the tech specialist because she got a solid +.6 GOE (the judges would have taken off a point or two in GOE if they had thought that the jump was underroated.)

On the second one the judges were less certain about, but still she ended up with only -.08, so basically they thought the combo was OK.

Give Rachael another 7 points or so for the two URs and that puts her up there with Miki in fifth place overall, which I think is about right for their performances.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Yuna, Mao, Joannie, Miki were all ahead of Rachael after the SP. Rachael was overscored in the SP I thought though, because at nationals, she and Mirai were both clean and she did the 3-3 and Mirai the 3-2 and Mirai beat her, but at the Olympics the same thing happened but Rachael beat Mirai.

Mirai's SP performance wasn't as good at Olympics. She had a small bobble on her Lutz at the Olympics and then at the end of the program she stood there for like 15 seconds with blood coming out of her nose. It was very strange.

She totally deserved 4th overall after her LP, though.

 

[silverlake22]

Mirai's SP performance wasn't as good at Olympics. She had a small bobble on her Lutz at the Olympics and then at the end of the program she stood there for like 15 seconds with blood coming out of her nose. It was very strange.

She totally deserved 4th overall after her LP, though.

Rachael and Mirai both should have been ahead of Miki after the SP, her 3f really was UR and landed her combo poorly (even though she went for a crazy hard one). Rachael and Miki were both clean but a little boring in their LPs, so I think they should have been very close in terms of scores, so like 5th and 6th, in whatever order, and Laura 7th I guess.

 

[R.D.]

I think Rachael was fairly scored at the Olympics, except for the two downgrades. On the first one, the judges evidently disagreed with the tech specialist because she got a solid +.6 GOE (the judges would have taken off a point or two in GOE if they had thought that the jump was underroated.)

On the second one the judges were less certain about, but still she ended up with only -.08, so basically they thought the combo was OK.

Give Rachael another 7 points or so for the two URs and that puts her up there with Miki in fifth place overall, which I think is about right for their performances.

^ Precisely.

 

[PolymerBob]

So has anyone heard of Vanessa Lam? She apparently won first at Golden West with a huge score despite having 3 falls. Is this girl a threat at Nationals this year?

I had never heard of Vanessa before this summer. Is she a threat? Well, if she fell 3 times, I would guess not. Then again, maybe she had a bad day.

 

[janetfan]

I think Rachael was fairly scored at the Olympics, except for the two downgrades. .

Why do you think it is unfair for a tech panel to downgrade Rachael's jumps? Your example is OK - but hardly unique.

Isn't part of the purpose of the tech panel to scrutinize jumps more closely than the judges? If not - then why even have a tech panel? Or maybe it could be used just for the levels. Why use the slo-mo instant replay? Better yet, let's just replace them with potted plants

Why can't the judges decide how good the jumps are? Is it because they are not competent or because ISU thinks a tech panel makes skating more of a "real sport." Does a tech panel really solve the old cheating federation problem?

When I hear something is unfair I wonder why and look for a motive.
Do you know of any reasons why Rachael's jumps were not treated fairly in Vancouver :think:

At Natls I can think of several reasons/motives why Rachael's jumps were judged more favorably than in Vancouver. But I can't think of any reason why Rachael was treated unfairly in Vancouver.

Besides being good at staying on her feet I don't find much else very special about Rachael's jumps. The flip and lutz looked a little off to me at Natls and also in Vancouver. Is it fair to think that one tech panel went easy on her and the other did not?

Maybe it was just as unfair that Rachael did not get dg'ed at Natls. Not to mention that Tom Z could have worked on her jumps and she might have done better in Vancouver.

 

[PolymerBob]

I think the issue is whether the tech panel was fair with everyone. If they were fair with Rachael, but lenient with everyone else, than that would not be fair.

It's weird, but sometimes being fair ........ is not fair.

 

[janetfan]

I think the issue is whether the tech panel was fair with everyone. If they were fair with Rachael, but lenient with everyone else, than that would not be fair.

It's weird, but sometimes being fair ........ is not fair.

I was just wondering if there was any reason to suspect Rachael was not treated fairly in Vancouver?

If anything I think we saw that Rachael and Miki might have been cut a little slack in the SP.:yes:

 

[silverlake22]

I was just wondering if there was any reason to suspect Rachael was not treated fairly in Vancouver?

If anything I think we saw that Rachael and Miki might have been cut a little slack in the SP.:yes:

Well, across the board, I'd say the scores were inflated in Vancouver, but to varying extents depending on the person.

 

[janetfan]

Well, across the board, I'd say the scores were inflated in Vancouver, but to varying extents depending on the person.

So is it possible the skaters with the qualities the judges liked best were inflated a bit more?
Isn't that the whole idea to an extent?

Let's say that Skater A covers the ice better than skater B.
Her jumps are straighter, higher and cover more ice.

Also skater A is more expressive with better lines and posture than skater B.

Tell me why Skater A should not get better marks? What would be unfair about the better skater getting better marks? :think:

Did Mirai only finish ahead of Rachael because they inflated her marks but not Rachael's? :disagree:

 

[Mathman]

By "fair" I meant, applying the same standards to all skaters. At Vancouver, to my unpracticed eye it looked like almost all the competitors underrotated almost every jump. Yet only Rachael's were downgraded and everyone else caught a break.

To be sure, I am not a tech specialist.

Still, I feel more confident that the tech specialist's call is correct when all the judges agree with the call. When all the judges disagree with the call, this raises suspicions that maybe the call was wrong. (Tech specialists are only human. )

Sometimes it's a mixed bag. At Nationals I thought Mirai's triple Lutz was OK. But the tech panel said no, it was under-rotated. Who is right, me or the expert? IIRC the NBC commentators agreed with me, as did almost everyone in the audience. The judges chimed in with GOEs of +1 +1 +1 0 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2. Some thought the jump was fine, others didn't. This makes me more likely to give the caller the benefit of the doubt, since the majority of the judging panel evidently agreed with the call.

 

[janetfan]

By "fair" I meant, applying the same standards to all skaters. At Vancouver, to my unpracticed eye it looked like almost all the competitors underrotated almost every jump. Yet only Rachael's were downgraded and everyone else caught a break.

To be sure, I am not a tech specialist.

Still, I feel more confident that the tech specialist's call is correct when all the judges agree with the call. When all the judges disagree with the call, this raises suspicions that maybe the call was wrong. (Tech specialists are only human. )

Sometimes it's a mixed bag. At Nationals I thought Mirai's triple Lutz was OK. But the tech panel said no, it was under-rotated. Who is right, me or the expert? IIRC the NBC commentators agreed with me, as did almost everyone in the audience. The judges chimed in with GOEs of +1 +1 +1 0 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2. Some thought the jump was fine, others didn't. This makes me more likely to give the caller the benefit of the doubt, since the majority of the judging panel evidently agreed with the call.

Fair is fair and I think I understood you. If I were to look up dg's and then check the judges scores I know I could find many examples like yours. Yuna is the first skater I thought of but I don't think this is so unusual.

Are you suggesting that Rachael was a victim of random incompetence?
Or for some reason the tech callers were out to get her?

Do you have any reasons to support that Rachael alone was singled out and the others were given a free pass on their jumps? Wasn't Mirai given a dg on her 3x3?

You made me think about this. Not saying I am right or that you are wrong. Just very curious......

 

[Layfan]

I was just wondering if there was any reason to suspect Rachael was not treated fairly in Vancouver?

If anything I think we saw that Rachael and Miki might have been cut a little slack in the SP.:yes:

I wish I could see Rachael's LP again. Doesn't anyone have a link to it? Not that I think I'd be able to really discern a URed jump but I wish I could at least see. It is interesting question about the tech panel. Rachael skated first out of the top six. Even though it's not supposed to happen under COP, I can't help but think the judges might have held her back or "saved marks" like they did under the old system to see what what the favorites would do. I think they did that with Mirai in the short, even though I also agree with BOP that Mirai did not do as well in her SP as she did at nats. Still, she might have been slightly underscored because it was her first major INT competiton and she had no reputation and all that.
But I can see judges doing that on GOEs and PCS. But I don't know why the tech panel would purposedly DG jumps that would clearly not URed. Obviously, people are implying they did it on purpose to make sure Rachael didn't get on the podium, but I woud certainly hope that is not the case. That is different from judges giving someone huge PCS because of rep - like with Lambiel - which is questionable enought but subconsciousness and humanity come into play and it IS a judged sport. But the tech panel being dishonest is a whole different thing.

I have to admit I remmeber thinking Rachael did really well in her SP. I remmeber thinking she skated with more freedom than many of the other skaters. I don't think she was particularly overscored in comparison to everyone else.

 

[janetfan]

Can you get this where you are?

http://www.universalsports.com/

I think you can find many Olympic programs there....

 

[feraina]

Here's Rachael's Olympic LP:
http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/vVgw8F_FdLU/

I can't find the protocol right now, but her first 3F (in combo) and both 3Z's (especially the first) look under-rotated. If you pause at the moment she touches down, you can see it more clearly.

 

[R.D.]

I have to admit I remmeber thinking Rachael did really well in her SP. I remmeber thinking she skated with more freedom than many of the other skaters. I don't think she was particularly overscored in comparison to everyone else.

I agree. It's just really curious what happened in the LP. But like I said before, even if she got credit for them, she wouldn't have won a medal anyway...

 

[FlattFan]

Here's Rachael's Olympic LP:
http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/vVgw8F_FdLU/

I can't find the protocol right now, but her first 3F (in combo) and both 3Z's (especially the first) look under-rotated. If you pause at the moment she touches down, you can see it more clearly.

It was within 1/4 turn. It looks about 45 degree short, the first lutz.

The flip, I can't see it.

 

[janetfan]

I agree. It's just really curious what happened in the LP. But like I said before, even if she got credit for them, she wouldn't have won a medal anyway...

That is why I have doubts about any "get Rachael" conspiracies. No one has offered one because there aren't any.
I can't think of a reason to doubt the tech callers and maintain that if anything they went easy on her in the SP just like they did with some of the others.

She skated very well but not as well as some of the others. No reason to say she was marked unfairly especially after she scored a season's best.

Sandra was praising her but on the replay of the 3x3 she noted there might be a UR. The clip feraina just posted didn't continue on and I don;t remember what else NBC said. I do remember they are always "homers' though

 

[FlattFan]

I had never heard of Vanessa before this summer. Is she a threat? Well, if she fell 3 times, I would guess not. Then again, maybe she had a bad day.

If she fell 3 times, and scored more than Caroline Zhang on a good day, then I would guess Caroline Zhang never make it out of the gate again if this girl goes head to head with her. .
We will have Agnes, Vanessa, Christina vying for the bronze and pewter medals. Good luck to Ashley and Caroline.