PDA

View Full Version : 2011 Japan Open



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

periperi
10-05-2011, 07:59 PM
I agree. But when there is nothing much going on the first half other than conserving energy and taking a rest stop or two, it's not much different than a front-loaded empty program. Perhaps even worse, because in a front-loaded program there is at least room for some interesting footwork and the jumps are out of the way. But in the back-loaded program the skater's mind could be on the jumps in the second half, which removes the focus from the first half and non-jump elements.

Exactly. I wish that the COP would emphasize that a balanced program with jumps at the beginning, middle and towards the end will be rewarded. It's great that the COP doesn't encourage front-loading, but if it rewards a program that has little going on in the beginning but is packed towards the end then there is a problem.

Such programs being rewarded has unfortunately sent Morozov a message. I just hope it doesn't become a widespread trend...

kirkbiggestfan
10-05-2011, 09:26 PM
They should give a 20% bonus to 3A or quads done in the second half, and a 5% bonus for the other jumps. The best Senior men can do the other jumps in their sleep and putting 5 of them in the end isn't that hard.

gkelly
10-05-2011, 09:49 PM
Exactly. I wish that the COP would emphasize that a balanced program with jumps at the beginning, middle and towards the end will be rewarded. It's great that the COP doesn't encourage front-loading, but if it rewards a program that has little going on in the beginning but is packed towards the end then there is a problem.

What is the problem?

There are two places where the distribution of elements across the program can be rewarded, or penalized.

One is in the bonus points for jumps performed after the halfway point of the long program. I don't think of that so much as an artistic reward as an athletic reward for maintaining enough aerobic capacity to perform energy-intensive elements requiring precise technique after 2+ minutes of skating.

If you get rid of the second half bonus, then most skaters will go back to doing their hardest jumps in the beginning and there will still be the same proportion of artistic or art-neutral programs according to that template.

The other place where layout can be rewarded or penalized is in the choreography component. That's more of an artistic reward. But there isn't any one jump layout that's inherently more artistic than another -- it's all what the skater does with the elements and the connections between them. So the judges have the discretion to reward what they consider effective use of element distribution or to penalize what they consider ineffective use. I guess it would fall under the "Proportion (equal weight of all parts)" criterion of the Choreography component (http://www.usfigureskating.org/content/JS08A-Programcompexplan.pdf).

Of course, for some judges that might be the most important criterion for judging choreography and other judges don't care about it at all, or anywhere in between.

If you're someone for whom that is most important, would you advocate rewriting the component criteria to make clear that element distribution should count heavily in that score?

Which of the existing criteria would you want to see given less weight to compensate?

Here's an example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owj4GsNMiKs) of a 6.0 program that I consider to be an artistically effective use of backloading, with the hardest jumps at the beginning but the majority saved for between the 3:20 and 4:00 points in the program. (execution -- negative GOEs and < calls in IJS terms -- aside)

But the same timing of the jumps might hurt the artistic impression of a program with a different concept.

calbskate
10-05-2011, 11:02 PM
Does anyone have a link to the protocols? I tried going to the official japan open website but it was in Japanese. I was wondering how many of Alissa's jumps were underrotated or downgraded.

Sorry if the link has already been posted and I missed it.

Thank you so much!

Triple Butz
10-05-2011, 11:08 PM
Does anyone have a link to the protocols? I tried going to the official japan open website but it was in Japanese. I was wondering how many of Alissa's jumps were underrotated or downgraded.

Sorry if the link has already been posted and I missed it.

Thank you so much!

http://www.skatingjapan.jp/InterNational/2011-2012/jo/index.htm

misskarne
10-06-2011, 03:00 AM
http://www.skatingjapan.jp/InterNational/2011-2012/jo/index.htm

Thankyou. I've been sick and hadn't seen anything on JO.

Chan's scores are just disgusting. No-one should be able to win a competition with 3 falls in one program. I don't care who you are, NO-ONE should be able to do that. It's called figure SKATING, not figure FALLING.

If you take a look at Gachinsky's scoresheet you can see the corruption in at least one of the judges visible.

For his 3A every judge gave him +2 or +3, but one judge gave him 0!

For his 3A-3T every judge gave him +1 or +2 (with one 0), but one judge (probably the same as above) gave him -2!!!

That's ridiculous. I can understand a variance in +1 and +2 (and even a zero where the variance is +1 to +2), but a -2 on a jump where every other judge has gone 0 or up?!

walei
10-06-2011, 03:25 AM
Thankyou. I've been sick and hadn't seen anything on JO.

Chan's scores are just disgusting. No-one should be able to win a competition with 3 falls in one program. I don't care who you are, NO-ONE should be able to do that. It's called figure SKATING, not figure FALLING.



I used this analogy in a previous post, but this is figure SKATING not figure RACING!

As long as other elements are excellent and make up for the loss in points from the fall compare to the rest of the field, a 3 fall Chan program is still a winnable skate.

Theatregirl1122
10-06-2011, 03:36 AM
T\Chan's scores are just disgusting. No-one should be able to win a competition with 3 falls in one program. I don't care who you are, NO-ONE should be able to do that. It's called figure SKATING, not figure FALLING.

The horse is dead.

periperi
10-06-2011, 03:45 AM
What is the problem?

There are two places where the distribution of elements across the program can be rewarded, or penalized.

One is in the bonus points for jumps performed after the halfway point of the long program. I don't think of that so much as an artistic reward as an athletic reward for maintaining enough aerobic capacity to perform energy-intensive elements requiring precise technique after 2+ minutes of skating.

If you get rid of the second half bonus, then most skaters will go back to doing their hardest jumps in the beginning and there will still be the same proportion of artistic or art-neutral programs according to that template.

I definitely don't want to get rid of the second half bonus.


The other place where layout can be rewarded or penalized is in the choreography component. That's more of an artistic reward. But there isn't any one jump layout that's inherently more artistic than another -- it's all what the skater does with the elements and the connections between them. So the judges have the discretion to reward what they consider effective use of element distribution or to penalize what they consider ineffective use. I guess it would fall under the "Proportion (equal weight of all parts)" criterion of the Choreography component (http://www.usfigureskating.org/content/JS08A-Programcompexplan.pdf).

Of course, for some judges that might be the most important criterion for judging choreography and other judges don't care about it at all, or anywhere in between.

If you're someone for whom that is most important, would you advocate rewriting the component criteria to make clear that element distribution should count heavily in that score?

Which of the existing criteria would you want to see given less weight to compensate?

See, maybe it's the judges that are my problem. I am someone who feels that balanced technical content is one of the keys to a great choreographed program, but maybe that's not a criteria that every judge will give as much weight to as I would personally like. It's not automatic like bonus points. Judges do have opinions and preferences.

I do think that the Proportion criteria section is a bit vague, however, so I would be someone who would advocate for that section to be more specific and emphasize that a program's element distribution is important, and that an unbalanced program is to be marked down. If element distribution is not given specific importance, then the second half bonus can gain too much power in how they affect a skater's score, IMO. There needs to be a balance.

I really can't give you a sure answer as to which criteria I would give less weight to if element distribution were to be given higher importance. I don't think I even fully grasp what certain of the criteria are specifically asking for as I'm a bit slow. I'll have to think about this one a bit more. :)

You do bring up that different jumping layouts suit different programs, and maybe my previous comment that a balanced jumping layout should specifically consist of jumps in the beginning, middle and towards the end is just too close-minded.


Here's an example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owj4GsNMiKs) of a 6.0 program that I consider to be an artistically effective use of backloading, with the hardest jumps at the beginning but the majority saved for between the 3:20 and 4:00 points in the program. (execution -- negative GOEs and < calls in IJS terms -- aside)

But the same timing of the jumps might hurt the artistic impression of a program with a different concept.

This is a good example as it does balance out.

I guess the jumping layouts I just downright have a problem with-as many do- are front loaded programs with very little going on in the second half and vice versa. That should and is supposed to be be a huge no-no in today's COP era, but I feel that certain scores for certain skaters just contradict that. In a way, it also comes down to judges scoring skaters based on their name, skating order, world ranking, and all that stuff that drive skating fans nuts. :rollin:

olifaunt
10-06-2011, 03:56 AM
I used this analogy in a previous post, but this is figure SKATING not figure RACING!

As long as other elements are excellent and make up for the loss in points from the fall compare to the rest of the field, a 3 fall Chan program is still a winnable skate.

Falls are the most visible error, so people focus on them. I think that's natural.

Silly anecdote: Last year I coerced my brother into watching Skate Canada with me. He usually doesn't watch the sport at all. He was confused and even a little angry about Patrick winning and declared the whole thing fixed. And that's the problem with these multiple-fall programs winning. Patrick is inarguably great and can wipe the floor with anyone on a good day, but watching him literally wipe the floor is really, really confusing for the casual viewer. A confused casual viewer isn't going to bother to watch again.

The Accordion
10-06-2011, 04:56 AM
Chan's scores are just disgusting. No-one should be able to win a competition with 3 falls in one program. I don't care who you are, NO-ONE should be able to do that. It's called figure SKATING, not figure FALLING.

So if the horse must be resurrected from the dead - how about you do what I don't think anyone has done yet - and have a look at the protocols and let us know who should have placed ahead of him and why.

gkelly
10-06-2011, 05:51 AM
See, maybe it's the judges that are my problem. I am someone who feels that balanced technical content is one of the keys to a great choreographed program, but maybe that's not a criteria that every judge will give as much weight to as I would personally like. It's not automatic like bonus points. Judges do have opinions and preferences.

And, if you were a judge, maybe you would give a lot of weight to that criterion and less to whatever some other judge or observer thinks is most important.


I do think that the Proportion criteria section is a bit vague, however, so I would be someone who would advocate for that section to be more specific and emphasize that a program's element distribution is important, and that an unbalanced program is to be marked down.

A lot of the criteria are vague as written.
Would it help for the ISU to write more explanations of the explanations so everyone could be on the same page as to what all the criteria mean?
Or should they go even further and give explicit guidelines for how to translate the described criteria into numerical scores?

What might such explicit guidelines look like?

Is it better if the rules are so explicit that everyone will judge the same way according to the rules? Then skaters will know exactly what they need to do to earn more points. But then judges who do value qualities that are not explicitly rewarded by the rules will not be able to reward those things if they are important to them.

Or is it better to leave some room for disagreement about relative importance and for personal perceptions? So if you're on the panel, you can give high value to element distribution that meets your personal standards. And another judge might give more value to having a clear program theme, or another to the balance of clockwise and counterclockwise patterns on the ice, and another to the musical phrasing. So skaters can try to do the best they can and emphasize whatever their strengths are, and to some extent how much they're rewarded for those strengths will depend on which judges happen to be on the panel and what their pet criteria are.


You do bring up that different jumping layouts suit different programs, and maybe my previous comment that a balanced jumping layout should specifically consist of jumps in the beginning, middle and towards the end is just too close-minded.



This is a good example as it does balance out.

But it had no jumps in the middle. :)

I could give you several lists of elements. Can you tell just from the lists which programs are more artistic or better choreographed than others? Or would you have to see the actual programs?




I guess the jumping layouts I just downright have a problem with-as many do- are front loaded programs with very little going on in the second half and vice versa. That should and is supposed to be be a huge no-no in today's COP era, but I feel that certain scores for certain skaters just contradict that.

How big a no-no has it ever been, under either judging system. It's one criterion among many. Can skaters who are generally good at most skills and who have programs that are generally good at most of the choreography criteria get away with one choreographic no-no better than skaters have great choreography but weaker basic skills or less natural musicality, etc.?

I don't think any single PCS criterion or any single element should ever be the deciding factor by itself. If one thing should be most important, it should probably be Skating Skills, because this is still primarily a skating contest. Still, the way the component judging currently works its all too easy for skating skills to have a disproportionate effect on the scores for the other components as well. Better it counts for too much than too little, but there is still room for improvement.

bek
10-06-2011, 06:46 AM
I used this analogy in a previous post, but this is figure SKATING not figure RACING!

As long as other elements are excellent and make up for the loss in points from the fall compare to the rest of the field, a 3 fall Chan program is still a winnable skate.

Its figure skating not figure falling, last time I checked. If you fall its a major error it means you lost control of your blades/weren't able to correctly land on your blades.

If this sport is going to be watchable it has to be somewhat understandable to the average viewer. Now obviously, everything can't be completely understood, there's the reason the sport is judged and even commentators.

But to take what is an error that is obvious even to the youngest most uneducated fan, and say that several such errors shouldn't matter.

I'm sorry but Patrick may have had a quad and others didnt' but its not like the others were landing only double jumps and people like Nobunari Oda are NOT bad skaters, with no skating skills.(I'm talking about Skate Canada)

Even if its not a "fix" I can ask once again whats the point of even watching if the judging system allows Patrick to win even when he has three falls in one program and gives him 9s for P/E to boot. Why have that mark say Execution at all in that circumstance.

A sport won't last if the outcame is THAT obviously determined. I know in gymnastics after the disaster that was 2004 the sport obviously made some questionable scoring decisions. But on of the decisions they made on bars was to value high flying elements more than than other elements. Because the audience was incapable of understanding why Nemov scored so much lower than others. Now one could question this decision but in someways the decision made sense too. The sport has to be somewhat understandable.

Once again how would the general public react if Patrick won the Olympics with four falls, there would be general outrage, and the sport would be done for sure. Now I know exactly what would happen and that is that Patrick wouldnt' be getting 9s for P/E in those circumstances, or others would find their PCS rise. Because they know full well they couldn't do that at the Olympics, if people will scream about B/S and a slight stumble.

But can I ask how fair is that to anyone that the sport pretty much would be judged different in the Olympics. Its not even fair to Patrick for the judges to tell him now those falls don't matter. Why not have a system that balances out the need for excellent basics but also to be able to execute cleanly the elements in the big moments. Surely the sport can do better than encouraging 4 falls. 6.0 would have hit someone hard for that, and people still did difficult jumps under 6.0. So the idea that a system that tells skaters if you fall several times you won't win, is somehow going to discourage difficulty is ridiculous to me. Give difficulty cleanly landed enough rewards and it will happen.

Vagabond
10-06-2011, 07:00 AM
Even if its not a "fix" I can ask once again whats the point of even watching if the judging system allows Patrick to win even when he has three falls in one program and gives him 9s for P/E to boot.

bek, I do believe that the time has come for you to stop watching figure skating and to go find another sport to watch, like stock car racing or tae kwon do.

We'll miss you. :)

bek
10-06-2011, 07:09 AM
bek, I do believe that the time has come for you to stop watching figure skating and to go find another sport to watch, like stock car racing or tae kwon do.

We'll miss you. :)

I actually watch the men less right now. Pairs is too good not to watch. And ladies will get interesting when the young girls come up......I actually though watch less than I use too.

But if the system is actually making someone like me even considering watching less than I use to its a problem. I was at the point watching Skate Canada where I really was thinking what is even the point of watching this? The outcome isn't even doubt.

I watch skating because I enjoy watching skating. But I'm sorry competitions are boring if competitions are predetermined. And if a great skater like Chan will automatically win over good skaters even if he's falling 4 times in the competition, than the outcome is pretty much predetermined. Why have a competition why bother, if you made it difficult for anyone BUT the preannointed one to win. I fail to see how my question isn't valid. Sure in judged sports with set difficulties its clear certain skaters/gymnasts/divers will likely win if they hit their routines. But at least let there be in there that said athlete has to actually deliver their content well. Chan in this system doesnt' have to deliver his content well. He can beat the freaking reigning world bronze medalist with multiple falls on his end.