PDA

View Full Version : Gifts to Chan keep American men out of GPF



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14

Dragonlady
12-10-2010, 05:26 PM
How much does the idea that just because I wanted to see quads worth more, it doesn't mean I wanted to see people rewarded for falling. I wanted them to reward the quys who landed the jump cleanly. Not hand someone MORE points than they'd get for a triple lutz, falling on their arse. I'm not sure why reward quads more = reward falls more? Its hardly truly rewarding jumps if you give people tons of points for falling on their butt.

They already tried raising the point values for completed quads but also increasing the penalties for failed attempts so that skaters didn't make good points by falling and the number of quad attempts dropped substantially (nearly 1/3) as a result.

The object of entering competition is to win. No points for failed quad attempts has meant no quad attempts because skaters can ill afford the risk of getting nothing on any of their 8 jumping passes. It’s the equivalent of spotting the opposition points. The skater thinks “I can try the quad which I land 50% of the time, and maybe get nothing, or I can do a 3Z and get 6 points for sure”.

So if you want to see quads, you’re going to have to give the guys SOMETHING for trying them because otherwise they won’t try them.

doubleflutz
12-10-2010, 09:31 PM
Once the components are limited to 2 or 3 scores, skaters like Chan won't be rewarded too many times for one quality. He will be rewarded for one thing and it will be clearer to see that he doesn't necessarely have to be rewarded for the rest.

No, this is silly. There's a difference between transitions done as choreography, and transitions which deserve credit for "difficult entry". If a transition really does effect the setup for a jump, a skater absolutely should get double credit under both TR and the GOE for that jump. What's at issue is the inconsistent standard, both in terms of what kind of transition counts for bonus +GOE and who gets credit for it.

Choreography just needs to go as a category. Use of space between partners pairs and ice dance & space between skater/audience can go into P/E, ice coverage can into SS, everything else should have been in IN already.

Although when it comes right down to it, this entire discussion is kind of a moot, because PCS aren't being scored correctly. 90% of the time, they're scored in aggregate a "corridor" based on reputation


That being said there is still a problem with programs with multiple falls that can win over possible less risky or quality performances.

No, there's not. The goal of any scoring system for skating should be simple: determine in what order skaters should be ranked, given the performances they give on the ice, on that day. Trying to come up with a system that artificially prevents certain kinds of results will make the system worse. If the system keeps the judges from being able to rank accurately (double axels worth too much, quads worth not enough, flutzes being rewarded like lutzes, 2.5 jumps rewarded like triples), that should be changed. But just a rule like "too many falls means you can't win over someone clean" is stupid. Laura Lepisto's bronze is not a good result.


Maybe something like a clear rule that would say something like a program with more than 3 falls won't be allowed to win the section, and a program with less than 3 validated triple jumps (for exemple, it can be more or less) won't be allowed to win the section.

Sometimes a program like that will deserve to win, and rules that don't allow for the possibility are bad rules.

doubleflutz
12-10-2010, 09:40 PM
So if you want to see quads, you’re going to have to give the guys SOMETHING for trying them because otherwise they won’t try them.

Or make attempted elements that don't count for any sort of points not count towards anything other than the mandatory fall deduction, so the skater can reattempt them later in the program if they choose. I thought that worked very well under 6.0.

Anyone who only has a jump 50% of the time in practice shouldn't be using it in competition, anyway. Skaters who could not land or rotate their quads should not have been getting points just for the attempt, but skaters who could weren't getting enough credit. It's the skaters who couldn't do them consistently who stopped attempting them.

heo-wikki
12-10-2010, 10:38 PM
And perhaps some people should put what he says into the context of what was asked and answered instead of picking out parts that make him look more young and foolish than he already is. Sheesh, I pretty sure there have been a number of skaters who have said something and it sounds one way when you hear only one part of the answer. Then later, someone comes along and explains what was asked and what was actually and completely said (Joubert regarding Buttle, anyone remember?) and most of us accept it as OK.

I don't think any of us who just follow skating (as opposed to knowing skaters quite well and personally) really know if Patrick is humble or not. Yeah, we've seen what he has said in print - the right or wrong of it notwithstanding. Is he PC enough for some - apparently not and most times, I care not. But then, I'm not the most PC person either. :D

Maybe humble was the wrong word...more media swavy?

I'm amused by ubers who go to great lenghts to justify any behavior that might be deemed negative by some, yet those same ubers will quickly jump on the the anti-band wagon of another skater - for same said behavior. (Not saying you are one of those ubers.):D

PC's (political correctness) are a really hard element to judge. IMHO, he might not score in the 9's. :eek:

But, would the anti-ubers have as much fuel for their ire if Chan where more media savy?

Artifice
12-11-2010, 06:04 PM
So skaters should just try to stick to mediocrity and not go for too much? That's saying, don't show up the less talented, the less ambitious - don't go for the win! How exactly can people set out to win the event if they're not to do "too much" and what exactly constitutes "too much".

No, I absolutely never said something like skaters should stick to mediocrity. I actually said the exact contrary, but you should have red my post entirely to see that. I said that it shouldn't happen that skaters can win with little technical risk.
Also, I was exposing some hypothesis, some ideas, to improve things and discuss and bring arguments to the discussion. It was not meant to be a new rulesbook. So, you are welcome if you want to bring something to the discussion instead of rejecting other's ideas without even bringing ideas.
But to answer your question as what is too much, like too many falls, it can be 3 or more for instance.


I do get the theory and why this causes people angst, believe it or not. But, you can never design an objective/transparent scoring system that can ensure this happens. If you do, by hyper-penalizing falls, you will have show skating on your hands. Might as well bring back Peggy Fleming; she could win!

So...sorry folks, really. It will never happen. As I said, though, I'm ok with -2 for falls.
Well, as I said previously my hope is not to penalize only multiple falls, but it is to penalize multiple falls AND technically weak programs. So it's absolutely not about allowing easy programs to win.
And the idea of penalizing with -2 each fall, leads to not going for risky jumps. While my idea leads to skaters going for hard jumps and at the same time presenting a program that is mastered and not a splatefest. The reason of that being that if a skater knows that a fall will be penalized like today, he will go for like the quad. But if one adds that after x falls he will not be allowed to win, then he will put efforts also on showing something that is mastered, and programs that show hard jumps without being a splate fest can win. A case like Chan winning with 4 falls would not happen.

Artifice
12-11-2010, 06:33 PM
No, this is silly. There's a difference between transitions done as choreography, and transitions which deserve credit for "difficult entry". If a transition really does effect the setup for a jump, a skater absolutely should get double credit under both TR and the GOE for that jump. What's at issue is the inconsistent standard, both in terms of what kind of transition counts for bonus +GOE and who gets credit for it.
Choreography just needs to go as a category. Use of space between partners pairs and ice dance & space between skater/audience can go into P/E, ice coverage can into SS, everything else should have been in IN already.

This not more silly than what you said. Sorry, but if you don't agree to something you don't have to speak so categorically. You don't own the absolute truth and I remind you that for the entire history of FS until few years ago, today's components used to be mixed under one only mark, the artistic impression... It was not considered so much of a silly thing, unfair sometimes, but silly is bit excessive.
As I said, the issue is not so much about the theory of having multiple components. The issue is about the fact that the more components the more difficult to gives accurate marks within a very short period of time. So it is interesting to have precise components score implemented, but I believe it is even more interesting to have components that can actually be judged accurately under real conditions.



Although when it comes right down to it, this entire discussion is kind of a moot, because PCS aren't being scored correctly. 90% of the time, they're scored in aggregate a "corridor" based on reputation

90% ? Can you give us your sources ?



No, there's not. The goal of any scoring system for skating should be simple: determine in what order skaters should be ranked, given the performances they give on the ice, on that day. Trying to come up with a system that artificially prevents certain kinds of results will make the system worse. If the system keeps the judges from being able to rank accurately (double axels worth too much, quads worth not enough, flutzes being rewarded like lutzes, 2.5 jumps rewarded like triples), that should be changed. But just a rule like "too many falls means you can't win over someone clean" is stupid. Laura Lepisto's bronze is not a good result.

Well, once again you are too categoric in your answers which tends to not encourage to try to discuss with you. If each time you don't agree with something you say "No, it's not", or "no, this is silly", putting aside the fact that one wants to tell you to stop believing you own the absolute truth, it shows an image of a narrowminded person.
Anyway, when you say that Lepisto's bronze is not a good result, you precisely agree with what I said since I said that skates like Lepisto's shouldn't be allowed to medal because of the lack of jumps...



Sometimes a program like that will deserve to win, and rules that don't allow for the possibility are bad rules.

So, what is good and what is bad ? How would you do practically to ensure the good to win and the bad to loose ? What do you mean by "sometimes a program like that will deserve to win" ?

gkelly
12-11-2010, 08:50 PM
I said that it shouldn't happen that skaters can win with little technical risk.

...But to answer your question as what is too much, like too many falls, it can be 3 or more for instance.

Well, as I said previously my hope is not to penalize only multiple falls, but it is to penalize multiple falls AND technically weak programs. So it's absolutely not about allowing easy programs to win.

And the idea of penalizing with -2 each fall, leads to not going for risky jumps. While my idea leads to skaters going for hard jumps and at the same time presenting a program that is mastered and not a splatefest. The reason of that being that if a skater knows that a fall will be penalized like today, he will go for like the quad. But if one adds that after x falls he will not be allowed to win, then he will put efforts also on showing something that is mastered, and programs that show hard jumps without being a splate fest can win.

Shouldn't happen where? Won't be allowed to win where?

At Worlds? At Grand Prix events? At senior B or JGP events? At US or Japanese or Canadian domestic qualifying events? At Italian or British or Croatian nationals?

I.e., do you want to put in rules that will automatically take the gold away from the best skater in a weak field if that skater happens to fall x number of times, regardless of what else they do right or what else the other skaters do wrong?

What if all the skaters fall at least x times? No one gets gold?

Do you want to put in rules that will automatically take the gold away from the best skater in a strong field if that skater happens to fall x number of times?

How do you determine in advance which competitions will be strong enough or important enough for the automatic no-gold-for-x-falls rule kicks in?

Or do you just want to penalize multiple falls so harshly that it's highly unlikely that a skater in a competition with a strong field will be able to make up for those penalties with the good stuff in the program if there's anyone else in the field who has anywhere close to that amount of good stuff and also fewer falls?


Anyway, when you say that Lepisto's bronze is not a good result, you precisely agree with what I said since I said that skates like Lepisto's shouldn't be allowed to medal because of the lack of jumps...

Now you also want a rule that will take the gold (or bronze, in this case) away from a skater who does a few good difficult jumps and waters down the rest of the jump content, because watered-down or lower-difficulty programs should not be allowed to win?

Again, how would you determine what the minimum content should be to be allowed to win at which competitions?


So, what is good and what is bad ? How would you do practically to ensure the good to win and the bad to loose ? What do you mean by "sometimes a program like that will deserve to win" ?

If you forbid gold medals being awarded to skaters with a certain number of falls and without a certain minimum content attempted, then you risk not being able to award a gold medal at all sometimes.

I don't think you can legislate in advance what types of programs should or shouldn't be allowed to win. Sometimes the cautious programs will win. Sometimes the daring programs that fail in some of their risks and succeed in others will win.

Sometimes at least one program will take lots of risks and succeed in all of them, in which case one of those programs will win and the audience will enjoy a satisfying result.

Sometimes all the good skaters will bomb and either the weaker skaters will also bomb or they'll be too weak to catch up even with a good performance for them. The audience will go home disappointed, but someone still needs to come out on top.

You can't guarantee in advance what kind of competition it will be. You can predict what the skaters entered are capable of if you know what they've been capable of in the past, or even the expected standard at a given kind of competition without knowing the specific entrants. But you can't predict how many of the good skaters will have a bad day or withdraw.

So therefore, you can't know for sure in advance what it will take to win a given competition.

Dragonlady
12-11-2010, 09:00 PM
Originally Posted by doubleflutz:
No, there's not. The goal of any scoring system for skating should be simple: determine in what order skaters should be ranked, given the performances they give on the ice, on that day.

That is not the goal of the current scoring system. Ranking the skaters was the goal of the 6.0 system and it was rife with problems, which I won't go into here.

The goal of this judging system is to assign points for everything the skater does based on the current scoring rules. That's it. The computer crunches the values assigned and ranks the skaters.

IceAlisa
12-11-2010, 09:23 PM
That Chan deserves extremely high SS there is no doubt in my mind. But I agree with the argument that he doesn't interpret/accentuate the beat of the music and that is not reflected in his IN scores.

With that in mind I think it was American men who kept American men out of GPF.

Artifice
12-11-2010, 09:39 PM
Or do you just want to penalize multiple falls so harshly that it's highly unlikely that a skater in a competition with a strong field will be able to make up for those penalties with the good stuff in the program if there's anyone else in the field who has anywhere close to that amount of good stuff and also fewer falls?

For instance.



If you forbid gold medals being awarded to skaters with a certain number of falls and without a certain minimum content attempted, then you risk not being able to award a gold medal at all sometimes.

I don't think so, it may happen that way sometimes, and the rule can take these specific cases into account. But most of the times such a case won't happen. The rule is first of all made to meet the majority of situations, exceptions should be dealt as exceptions.


I don't think you can legislate in advance what types of programs should or shouldn't be allowed to win. Sometimes the cautious programs will win. Sometimes the daring programs that fail in some of their risks and succeed in others will win.
This is actually what is discussed here after Chan's win after multiple falls, and great skating skills that obviously were marked so that they compensated for the falls.

gkelly
12-11-2010, 09:56 PM
The rule is first of all made to meet the majority of situations, exceptions should be dealt as exceptions.

So how would you word the rule(s)?


This is actually what is discussed here after Chan's win after multiple falls, and great skating skills that obviously were marked so that they compensated for the falls.

How would you feel if judges at Skate Canada gave Chan the exact same PCS that they did, but the point values of the quads and GOEs were such that he ended up 5th in the short program and was only able to pull up to 2nd with his winning FS?

bek
12-11-2010, 10:06 PM
So how would you word the rule(s)?



How would you feel if judges at Skate Canada gave Chan the exact same PCS that they did, but the point values of the quads and GOEs were such that he ended up 5th in the short program and was only able to pull up to 2nd with his winning FS?

I don't think Patrick deserved to beat either Oda or Rippon at Skate Canada...

Dragonlady
12-11-2010, 10:34 PM
I don't think Patrick deserved to beat either Oda or Rippon at Skate Canada...

Not in the SP but he certainly deserved to beat them in the LP and that was the basis of his win.

Mariko88
12-11-2010, 11:00 PM
Not in the SP but he certainly deserved to beat them in the LP and that was the basis of his win.

I agree. But the way things are happening, it's like "Why bother with a Short Program"??? Let's just skate a long and get it over with.

bek
12-12-2010, 02:16 AM
Not in the SP but he certainly deserved to beat them in the LP and that was the basis of his win.

Adam Rippon was given only a 3 point advantage based on both men's shorts. I'm sorry that was RIDICULOUS. A clean Rippon short program, is a lot more than 3 points better than a 3 fall short program from Patrick.

I'm all for comebacks, but Adam deserved a LOT bigger lead after the short, and both Adam and Nobunari skated well enough in both phases of the competition to overcome Patrick IMO. Its not like Patrick was perfect in the long program himself.