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

caseyedwards
10-06-2011, 08:03 AM
I think just people would need to be told that falling doesn't invalidate the element. You still get points for rotations. You don't just get points for landings. If you only got points for landings well then you would see jump difficulty go way down. I mean lots don't even know that their are different jumps. Can't dumb down the scoring for the people who don't know a double axel from a quad.

(BTW I decided to watch some interviews with BUttle after he won worlds and a guy interviewing him wanted to ask him about a quad controversy but said he didn't know what a quad even was. I mean come on! Then why ask? What was that interview about? Maybe he did know and was just playing to the people who didn't. But what would have been so hard about saying quad equads jump with four rotations?}

There still should be some MORE reflection of technical errors in PCS. The PE mark should have gone down more.

tkaug
10-06-2011, 08:18 AM
I would really like Patrick to skate to "Legends of the Fall".
That program will tell you what his figure skating is about! :)

senorita
10-06-2011, 08:31 AM
How Chan builts his career so far is really a lesson for the newbies. It doesnt matter if he isnt one of my fav skaters, really most skaters built around super technical stuff and when they start winning their pcs go up and stay there. While Chan built up his pcs first, established himself in the 8/9s and then made his TES more difficult.
I dont mind the falls and all and it is the beginning of season, but from last season I think he gets too much GOE on the jumps, even the ones who are just ok.
Yes I know his gets difficult entries in jumps and all , but how many times transitions would reflect in the marks?
He could make the entrance to quad and triple axel simple so he secures his jumps, I think he can afford having two transitions less.

os168
10-06-2011, 09:09 AM
I am curious, just when and why did they change the rules for to make it okay to fall multiple times and it doesn't really matter? Almost looks like the anti 6.0 rule. (Seems went further backwards.)

Aussie Willy
10-06-2011, 12:58 PM
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.


So is it not good enough that he actually got pretty much -3 from all the judges on every element he fell on? And lost a total of at least 8 points from the base value on those elements alone. And then another 3 points taken off his score for the deductions. So 11 points lost because of falls on elements. That is quite a large loss of points on what could have been.

Regardless of those falls, the quality of Chan's components are still much better than most other competitors. That also has to be reflected in the scores.

gkelly
10-06-2011, 01:06 PM
I am curious, just when and why did they change the rules for to make it okay to fall multiple times and it doesn't really matter? Almost looks like the anti 6.0 rule. (Seems went further backwards.)

Originally, quads and triple axels had moderately high base marks and the negative GOEs were on the same scale as those of the positive GOEs and same as for other triples:

+1 equals 1.0 points added and -1 equals 1.0 points subtracted from the base marks

(for single and double jumps the values of the GOEs are less)

Well, the guys who could do these jumps thought they weren't getting rewarded enough for difficulty because other skaters who couldn't rotate triple axels and quads were able to rack up enough points to keep up with them just by skating easier programs with less risk cleaner and earning higher GOEs.

So a few years ago the ISU raised the value of the triple axels and quads. They also raised the value of the negative GOEs for those jumps only so that -1 would take off 1.5 points etc. The reward for completing a quad was high, but the reward for rotating it with major mistakes was not so high after the GOE (and fall deduction if applicable) was subtracted.

That's the situation that was in place as of the 2010 Olympics.

Well, the quad proponents still weren't happy that guys without quads could beat guys who skated clean programs with quads and that the Olympic title had been an example of this possibility.

So the ISU changed the values again. They made the base values for quads even higher and they lessoned the penalties for minus GOEs back to -1 = 1.0 off for quads and triple axels (and less for other triples).

The penalty for falling remains 1.0 per fall, regardless of the difficulty of the move on which the fall occurs.

Now with very high base marks and comparatively small deductions for errors, rotating a quad and falling still leaves the skater with a lot of points on the plus side even after subtracting 3.0 from the GOE and 1.0 from the total score. So now the risk of attempting quads and possibly failing is encouraged by the high points awarded for rotated but not successfully landed quads.

That satisfies what the people who want to encourage skaters to risk quads.

It frustrates people who would rather see clean programs than failed quads, and it frustrates people who would be happy to see clean quads earn high points but hate to see failed quads earn more than clean easy triples or to see jumps with falls earn any points at all.

Personally I don't think the answer is to increase the fall deduction, because it doesn't apply only to high value jumps. The same fall deduction also applies to falls on single and double jumps (whether popped or intended by lower level skaters). It also applies to falls on step sequences and spins that may earn anywhere from zero points to base mark for level 4 minus a GOE reduction of -3 or less, depending on how much of the element the skater completed successfully before the fall. It also applies to falls on stroking between elements.

If you raised the fall deduction across the board, then skaters who aren't trying triple axels and quads would be penalized much more than those who are. Already a fall on a double jump or non-jump element loses more points in negative GOE and fall deduction than it earns in base mark. If you penalize the falls on easy elements even more harshly, a bad skate by a bad junior on the JGP might easily earn more negative points from falls than it earns positive points for elements attempted -- in effect, those skaters could end up with negative technical scores.

Instead think the answer is to go back to the larger minus GOEs for the highest value jumps. Keep the high base values, so that a high-risk element that is completed successfully or with only minor flaws will still earn a lot of points, but penalize serious errors with a big loss of GOE. Don't let a failed quad be worth more than a good a triple.

bek
10-06-2011, 01:32 PM
So is it not good enough that he actually got pretty much -3 from all the judges on every element he fell on? And lost a total of at least 8 points from the base value on those elements alone. And then another 3 points taken off his score for the deductions. So 11 points lost because of falls on elements. That is quite a large loss of points on what could have been.

Regardless of those falls, the quality of Chan's components are still much better than most other competitors. That also has to be reflected in the scores.

No its not enough punishment. There are 14 elements in a free skate. Patrick made MAJOR glaring errors on 3 of them which is pretty much 28 percent of the total elements. But the total punishment Patrick got for having glaring errors on 28% of the elements in his program (and the hardest elements at that wasn't even close to 10% of his total score. But let me tell you the overall impression Patrick gives to the audience when he falls 3 times is certainly not oh that's less than 10% of what matters. The overall impression he gives is whats wrong with him that he's falling so much. And from what I understand is that Patrick had other jumping errors in that program that were also hit with poor GOE besides just those falls. So really he had errors on more than 30% of the elements in his program.

The fact that the sport has a mark called Performance/Execution. And then you have judges giving a skater 9s and 8 for execution when they are having glaring errors on almost half of the jumping elements is ridiculous. Why even have that mark because clearly executing your program cleanly means NADA.

In basketball you have to make baskets in order win games. In football you have to make touchdowns. Why is the sport of figure skating saying that a skater can have glaring errors on almost half of their jumping and still beat good skaters. Yes Patrick may have the best skating skills in the world and has difficult transitions/choregraphy. But I'm sorry he falls four times in a competition, the playing field has to be leveled.

(One could get into how more glaring 3 falls in a short program is, in terms of percentage of the elements)

Now that I think about it maybe that's what the punishment for a fall should be. 10% of total score in the program is taking off for a fall. That would actually more seriously reflect how jaring a fall is to a program. One fall would not really be the end of the world, but multiple ones would kill a score which it should. And that 10% is not including points taken off of the element.

lauravvv
10-06-2011, 02:23 PM
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.
Thank you, really. How I love to read such well weighed and thought out posts with all the pros and cons included from people who know what they are talking/writing about. Because I myself am also a logical thinker who always tries to think about all aspects/pros and cons of the given subject, but I am still very far from expert in figure skating. And it becomes a huge obstacle when I am trying to evaluete things in figure skating in a more or less objective way :lol:. So, it's really pleasant to get insight from people (and not just you, of course) who are experts in figure skating (or at least much closer to that than me).

But the one thing that I know for sure is that Skating Skills should be valued above all else in a sport that is called Figure Skating. Even above jumps, because the only part of jumps that actually has something to do with skating itself is the skater's ability to keep their balance on the ice (which makes it much harder to do) upon landing. Also, by that logic, poorly executed (underrotated or slantingly angled) jumps that are still landed without falling or even putting the other foot (or a hand) down on the ice, should be rewarded better than perfectly executed jumps that are easier to land cleanly :lol:. But somehow I don't see that happening (not that I think it should happen that way). No, don't understand me wrong - I still think that jumps are important, as they really up the difficulty level of skating. If seriously, I also understand that skating skills alone can't determine if the skater wins or not. In truth, I just think that someone with really good skating skills can't be called a mediocre skater because he doesn't have a perfect jumping technique and even has placed lower in some competitions than those with better jumping skills.

And, yes, I too agree that no single element or part of PCS (even skating skills) should decide the outcome of judging. Everything should be judged/taken into account equally. A skater shouldn't win just because he has the best skating skills (because then the outcome would really be predetermined), and a skater shouldn't win just because he has the best jumps. And, of course, all the PCSs should be judged really carefully and seperately, so as to avoid the "anchoring" effect already mentioned by someone. For, a skater having good skating skills doesn't a priori mean that he also has good transitions, and a skater being a good performer/having good connection with the public doesn't mean that he is also a good interpreter of music. I would even go as far as giving judges more time to rewatch the skates and decide on the marks, if that would mean more objectivity, or at least a more weighed out judgement according to the true preferences and perceptions of each judge. Because, although I know that experts can recognize all the technical elements and mistakes/imperfections in them, and even skating skills right away, I don't believe that they can evalute everything else - choreography, transitions, performance and interpretation at the same time (or even in such a short time) appropriately. They too are only human, after all.

Speaking about the distribution of elements in a program, as a semi educated spectator I am generally for equally distributed technical elements in competitipn programs (exhibition programs are another thing completely). I think that there should be an equal/almost equal number of jumps both in the first and second half of a program, but they should be interspersed with other elements - both technical (like spins and step sequences), and choreograpchical (transitions and other moves). Because I clearly don't like it when a huge part of a program consists only of a skater skating around the rink from one jump to the next. But I also like that at some point of the program there is a time when I can watch an interesting and well executed step sequence and enjoy the skater's artistic expression. Probably that could be somewhere around the middle of the program. At the same time, I understand that it may be difficult for a skater to express himself/hersel freely, when he/she has to think about jumps that are still ahead :(. So, it's really difficult to decide which is more important - an equal distribution of jumps or artistic expression. As someone who generally values the art in figure skating higher than jumps, I should say that the latter is more important. But I also understand the importance of technical difficulty in competition programs. Besides, most jumps being in the first half of the program doesn't contribute to artistry if the step sequence and general choreography in the second part are bland and boring. So, in the end it comes to an equal distribution of all elements in competition programs. And I can look for the freedom of artistic expression in exhibition programs (which I do).

senorita
10-06-2011, 02:31 PM
No disagreement but the overused argument It is called Figure skating can be replied by the super overused answer that in many other languages it is called something like Patinage Artistique, Ice skating etc...

fscric
10-06-2011, 02:32 PM
No its not enough punishment. ....

Seriously, perhaps you should write to ISU and advise them of your proposal. Or better yet, request them to ban Patrick from competing so that he won't be benefited from this system any more.

bek
10-06-2011, 02:44 PM
Seriously, perhaps you should write to ISU and advise them of your proposal. Or better yet, request them to ban Patrick from competing so that he won't be benefited from this system any more.

I don't want Patrick to be banned from competiting. He's a wonderful skater who deserves to win when he skates well/decently. The problem isn't Patrick.

lauravvv
10-06-2011, 02:58 PM
No disagreement but the overused argument It is called Figure skating can be replied by the super overused answer that in many other languages it is called something like Patinage Artistique, Ice skating etc...But is there a language in which the title doesn't include the word 'Skating', but includes, for instance, 'Jumping' instead :D? For it is not about the word 'Figure', but about the word 'Skating'. We all know that skaters have not been skating real figures for a long time now.

bek
10-06-2011, 03:26 PM
But is there a language in which the title doesn't include the word 'Skating', but includes, for instance, 'Jumping' instead :D? For it is not about the word 'Figure', but about the word 'Skating'. We all know that skaters have not been skating real figures for a long time now.

Not to mention while its not figure jumping. The fact is that jumps are part of singles skating. They are the majority of the elements. So to write that it absolutely shouldn't matter that a skater missed almost half their jumps in their program, because jumping isn't important. Is to beg the question why have the jumps at all if executing the jumps don't matter. All that matters is that the skater fully rotated a quad fall. At least landing a jump correctly involves the blades, falling has absolutely NADA to do with skating skills. Now obviously Patrick has gorgeous skating skills and the best skaters are ice dancers. But still jumping is a part of singles skating.

Its not wrong to think that a winning singles program should include well executed difficult jumps (for their level), good spins footwork, good skating skills and choregraphy transitions. A program should have all of these things.

gkelly
10-06-2011, 03:42 PM
No disagreement but the overused argument It is called Figure skating can be replied by the super overused answer that in many other languages it is called something like Patinage Artistique, Ice skating etc...

Nevertheless, all languages include "skating" in the name of the sport and none of them include jumping (or falling, or staying upright, for that matter).

What varies is whether the emphasis is on the fact that skating is artistic, the surface on which it takes place, or the execution of figures (no longer meaningful in the sense of school figures, but perhaps in a more general sense of figure = element or move performed on the ice -- I do hear some older judges refer to moves as figures).

Language cultures that include art in the name might expect the second mark/PCS to be more important than those that don't. But none of them imply that skating skills should be discounted in favor of art, much less in favor of jumps.

We would certainly have a different expectation of the sport if its name were "Staying upright on ice."

ItalianFan
10-06-2011, 05:32 PM
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.


Absolutely totally agree with above. No wonderful intermediate twirling and swirling transitions should possibly compensate for falling on three jumps, the hardest elements....