PDA

View Full Version : 2010 ISU Congress Agenda is online - discuss!



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21

shallwedansu
05-29-2010, 03:35 AM
Ironically, your queen's skating...
:rofl:

Ziggy, this guy thinks you're a Yunabot.

RumbleFish
05-29-2010, 05:49 AM
2 Bonus points per each ISU sponsorship. :D

Here is my back of an envelope valuation regarding cash for points bailout facility that JSF has in place for ISU.

In 2009 WTT that was held in Tokyo, Asada was given a personal best score of 201, which was 2points higher than her previous PB of 199.
It was also reported that ISU collected approx. $4 million of revenue from WTT.

$4million / 2points = $2million/point :bribe:

Assuming Asada will get 5 point advantage vis a vie Kim with new rules that the ISU technical committee has prepared, i.e. less harsh penalty for underrotation, increased base value for 3A and 2L, adjustment in GOE spreads, and restricting number 2A attempts, I estimate that JSF has at least committed to funnel $10 million over next 4 years.

By observing "2 point bonus rule for extraordinary element rule" the JSF has urgently proposed, I would have to think that JSF is willing to throw more money if they have to.
I also wonder whether it is just coincidence that threads regarding 2011 WTT :scream: starts popping up simultaneously with so-called urgent proposal.

I cannot help but marvel at JSF's financial prowess and pathetic state our sport is in being dominated by a single federation and one skater that represents it.

RumbleFish
05-29-2010, 06:09 AM
I heard that Kim's scores and placement at the Worlds became quite controversial among ISU people.

Do you hang out often with Ottavio? or are you a relative of Hiramatsu Junko? :scream:

By failing to clarify the source of your first sentence, you have turned your whole post to something worthless to read.
Good work. :lol:

Marco
05-31-2010, 12:04 PM
The new system doesn't reward doing all 5 triples, so there's no incentive to always attempt them.

The new system (in its new form) rewards going for harder jumps. Isn't it crazy that a skater who only has 3 out of the 5 normal types of triples is ENCOURAGED to go for the 6th and hardest type instead of first fixing the other 2 types that she couldn't consistently do?

Between this, overly rewarding cheated jumps and downplaying the importance of quality, the system is essentially just encouraging difficulty but not penalising skating flaws. They are giving a huge break to flawed skaters (those who cheat their jumps, those who don't have 4 or 5 types of triples and those who don't have quality jumping) by pulling them closer to good, clean skaters.

How can that be good to skating in general when flaws are overlooked and quality not rewarded? This whole thing seems off even if forgetting the Kim vs Asada context.



We just want fair judging everybody understands and tends to agree to those scores.

This sport is not just for Kim or Asada :rolleyes:

But the new rules do not help with better judging. Nothing was mentioned in relation to judging giving similar PCS across the 5 components and a score corridor according to skating order or reputation.

In fact, by rewarding absolute elements such as jumps more heavily and downplaying judged aspects such as jump GOE, judges perception will have less importance to a skater's score. Less judging can't lead to fairer judging. More education, practice and guidance are key. (unless you are rooting for a skater who has many weaknesses that can't objectively be ignored?) :D

And re: your last sentence - only a blind person won't see the correlation. Or maybe a biased one too. :P In any event, most changes that have taken place in figure skating rules and systems in the past 20 years have been a result of controversies for medal and title contenders.


My question for the changes is whether they are trying to change the system to address an outlier situation, like Kim having 17+ points in +GOE, or whether they have noticed a trend they don't like and are trying to address that.

Except Kim deserved her GOE points. (you can argue how ugly her spirals are but she does fly across the ice on a solid edge like no one) I would never understand why rewarding quality can be "a trend they don't like". I guess I would be less upset about upping the base mark for the 3axel and the 70% < rule if quality can still be rewarded accordingly.

I mean, looking at the way Kim does her 3lutz (the second one at the Olympics!) and the way Rachael Flatt does her clean ones - how should they be only 1 point apart to the max?

If they think a +2 on a 3toe constitutes too much % of its own base value, by all means they should introduce a value system where the GOE reward is much more proportionate to the base value. Unfortunately right now it's only done to the 3axel and above. And then it's basically just categorised by revolutions which wouldn't help differentiate between a +2 for a 3toe and a +2 for a 3lutz.

miki88
05-31-2010, 01:18 PM
The new system (in its new form) rewards going for harder jumps. Isn't it crazy that a skater who only has 3 out of the 5 normal types of triples is ENCOURAGED to go for the 6th and hardest type instead of first fixing the other 2 types that she couldn't consistently do?

Between this, overly rewarding cheated jumps and downplaying the importance of quality, the system is essentially just encouraging difficulty but not penalising skating flaws. They are giving a huge break to flawed skaters (those who cheat their jumps, those who don't have 4 or 5 types of triples and those who don't have quality jumping) by pulling them closer to good, clean skaters.

How can that be good to skating in general when flaws are overlooked and quality not rewarded? This whole thing seems off even if forgetting the Kim vs Asada context.

So are you saying we should leave the system as it is? Well when you refer to "good and clean" skaters, that can only be applied to technique. Several skaters who have good techniques aren't capable of delivering clean performances. If they penalize falls more (more than 1pt), then I will be more willing to accept the present system that I believe overly reward quality over difficulty, and quality only in one certain kind of way.

RunnersHigh
05-31-2010, 01:25 PM
So are you saying we should leave the system as it is? Well when you refer to "good and clean" skaters, that can only be applied to technique. Several skaters who have good techniques aren't capable of delivering clean performances. If they penalize falls more (more than 1pt), then I will be more willing to accept the present system that I believe overly reward quality over difficulty.

What is the problem ,do you think, with this system as it is? :watch:

Shaky 3A-2T is lower than 3Lz-3T? or too harsh with UR?

miki88
05-31-2010, 01:31 PM
What is the problem ,do you think, with this system as it is? :watch:

Shaky 3A-2T is lower than 3Lz-3T? or too harsh with UR?

I believe this problem was discussed at length in the "Lepisto won bronze" thread. :hat1: I think the present system do not encourage people to skate clean programs, and as someone who started being a skating fan since the 6.0 era, I have a strong preference for clean programs. Yes, I do think they are harsh with UR but as long as they are equally harsh with falls, then it's fine as it is.

RunnersHigh
05-31-2010, 01:38 PM
I believe this problem was discussed at length in the "Lepisto won bronze" thread. :hat1: I think the present system do not encourage people to skate clean programs, and as someone who started being a skating fan since the 6.0 era, I have a strong preference for clean programs. Yes, I do think they are harsh with UR but as long as they are equally harsh with falls, then it's fine as it is.

Encourage? Without basic triples though?

And.. in Vancouver, there're many clean programs in FS. At Final flights, Miki's, Flatt's, Mirai's and Yu-Na's. What kind of clean program do you want to be the best?

I don't mind 2 bonus points for 5 triples and 3 bonus points for 6 triples.
But, 2 bonus points for 3A or 3A combo w/o basic triples is ridiculous.

miki88
05-31-2010, 01:46 PM
Encourage? Without basic triples though?

And.. in Vancouver, there're many clean programs in FS. At Final flights, Miki's, Flatt's, Mirai's and Yu-Na's. What kind of clean program do you want to be the best?

I don't mind 2 bonus points for 5 triples and 3 bonus points for 6 triples.
But, 2 bonus points for 3A or 3A combo w/o basic triples is ridiculous.

I mean consistently put on clean programs, not just one event. In the old 6.0 system, clean programs were more often seen because it was encouraged. Sigh, you're just simply harping on one skater for the new rules, when you know well that there's only one lady in the top group who has all the basic triples (Joannie). And plus the new bonus rule you're talking about; it may very well not be passed. I am only referring to the downgrade rule that is proposed by the tech committee and is very likely to be passed.

gkelly
05-31-2010, 02:03 PM
I mean consistently put on clean programs, not just one event. In the old 6.0 system, clean programs were more often seen because it was encouraged.

Really? Because I remember an awful lot of flawed programs at lots of 6.0 events.

miki88
05-31-2010, 02:11 PM
Really? Because I remember an awful lot of flawed programs at lots of 6.0 events.

In the old system, if you fall once, and your closest competitor skates clean, then you're not going to win. That's not the case under the new system.

RunnersHigh
05-31-2010, 02:15 PM
I mean consistently put on clean programs, not just one event. In the old 6.0 system, clean programs were more often seen because it was encouraged. Sigh, you're just simply harping on one skater for the new rules, when you know well that there's only one lady in the top group who has all the basic triples (Joannie). And plus the new bonus rule you're talking about; it may very well not be passed. I am only referring to the downgrade rule that is proposed by the tech committee and is very likely to be passed.

miki88, how do you compare the clean programs under the 6.0 system and under the IJS?

Didn't you know why I referred clean programs in Vancouver?
There're 4 clean programs out of 6 in final flight but they were not all impressing..

I'm just 5 years old with FS but I've seen almost of all performances since 80's.

What I wanna talk about is "Good and Clean basic skills should be considered as much as higher(?) skills to be encouraged. And Higher skills not based on the basic skill are not that great to be considered at all."

RunnersHigh
05-31-2010, 02:25 PM
In the old system, if you fall once, and your closest competitor skates clean, then you're not going to win. That's not the case under the new system.

Do you believe it's just one fall separating Gold and Silver under 6.0?

gkelly
05-31-2010, 02:42 PM
In the old system, if you fall once, and your closest competitor skates clean, then you're not going to win. That's not the case under the new system.

That was not necessarily true.
Depended how close the closest competitor was.
And how the majority of judges weighted all the other aspects of the programs against the falls.

Clean programs were certainly an exception for ladies at the fall events.

E.g., I seem to remember Maria Butyrskaya with three(?) falls winning a Skate America against Elena Sokolova with none, or Michelle Kwan with a fall winning Skate America against Sarah Hughes with no falls. And fans and even journalists complaining that Sokolova or Hughes wuzrobbed. Now, there may have been some two-footed or cheated jumps on their part, so the judges or more nitpicky fans wouldn't necessarily have considered those performances "clean," but to a casual observer they certainly appeared so.

Or take, say, Berezhnaya/Sikharulidze at 1998 Olympics. One fall in the SP and they placed 3rd ahead of a superficially clean Ina/Dungjen. Two falls in the LP and 2nd ahead of apparently cleaner performance by Wotzel/Steuer.

Or, hey, Grishuk/Platov fell at 1994 Worlds and easily won.

And so on. There were plenty more examples of programs with falls or other disruptive errors winning over those without.

You could discount them by saying that the next closest competitor wasn't really that close. Or you can say that the judges got it wrong and the skater with the cleaner performance should have won (and a minority of the judging panel might have agreed with you).

But what you can't say with any accuracy is that, as a general rule, if you fell and your closest competitor at that event did not fall then the competitor would win. Because very often that was not the case.

And there are lots more examples where the top two or three or more performances all included falls or other disruptive errors, but the best clean performance was too far behind in other aspects to challenge. I.e., events where none of the top contenders skated clean.

miki88
05-31-2010, 03:31 PM
miki88, how do you compare the clean programs under the 6.0 system and under the IJS?

Didn't you know why I referred clean programs in Vancouver?
There're 4 clean programs out of 6 in final flight but they were not all impressing..

I'm just 5 years old with FS but I've seen almost of all performances since 80's.

What I wanna talk about is "Good and Clean basic skills should be considered as much as higher(?) skills to be encouraged. And Higher skills not based on the basic skill are not that great to be considered at all."


Runnershigh, when you can talk about this issue without focusing only on two skaters, then I'll be more willing to discuss this with you.

Gkelly You have a point, but still don't you think that falls were penalized more under the old system? I think it's probably because they judged the performances as a whole rather than dissecting it into parts and giving everything a value like they do now.