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

jl22aries
10-06-2011, 05:37 PM
People, bundle the horse beaters up, and send them into ignore box oblivion. All the thought out, informed, researched essay responses seemingly aren't being considered by em trolls, and years of the same line for line complaints persist. JUST SEND THEM AWAY the only way we can in here.

ItalianFan
10-06-2011, 06:01 PM
People, bundle the horse beaters up, and send them into ignore box oblivion. All the thought out, informed, researched essay responses seemingly aren't being considered by em trolls, and years of the same line for line complaints persist. JUST SEND THEM AWAY the only way we can in here.


Why are the opinions of the Chan worshippers who believe that he should win no matter how badly he performs more legitimate than we trolls?? (and why are we trolls? ....just because we don't agree with the Chan worshippers??)

Emdee
10-06-2011, 06:03 PM
I am a Chan supporter... I love his footwork and skating skills.

Sad that he missed some of his jumps but as someone else said they came out of very difficult footwork. I know by the season's end he will be great and I hope to see him at the Grand Prix Final!

kwanfan1818
10-06-2011, 06:52 PM
Yes I know his gets difficult entries in jumps and all , but how many times transitions would reflect in the marks?
The judges have the option to add GOE for each difficult entrance and each difficult exit. If a skater does a lot of them, like Chan or Hanyu, s/he is able to see that reflected in the scores. The TR mark is transitions between the elements, or transitions between the transitions out of the elements and into the transitions into the elements. Given the very small number of cross-overs in Chan's programs, with half of them being his entrance into the 3A, I imagine it's harder to distinguish where one begins and another ends. With the current version of Hanyu's FS, it's easier, since he has complicated and beautiful entrances into his elements, but very clear breaks between some of them.


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.
I haven't seen anything fancy into his 3A's, especially since he dropped the 3A combination and replaced it with a quad combination. I think the strategy is to land one 3A in each program consistently and to avoid complications until he can land it in his sleep. That's still a work-in-progress.

He has been relatively consistent with the quad in this calendar year, and I expect him to get that solo 4T back.



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.
ITA.


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.
There are the actual school figures, which are now a sub-specialty not part of ISU championships, and then there are the attributes of school figures: blade control, patterns, correct edge changes, holding the body properly over the blade. These attributes are critical for transitions and the two-minute footwork sequences (;)). The best skaters have them, even if the judges are slow to recognize them in skaters like Kozuka.

Rafter
10-06-2011, 07:01 PM
I really don't like Chan's entry to the 3A in his LP. I almost think he and his team have done so much tweaking of this jump that he's never been able to get comfortable with it.

VarBar
10-06-2011, 07:17 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.

:rofl::rofl:

That's ridiculous beyond words.

gkelly
10-06-2011, 07:36 PM
My opinion about whether a certain number of falls should disqualify one from winning a competition has absolutely nothing to do with Patrick Chan.

The rules need to work for all levels of skating, all disciplines. Proposing rules to prevent one specific skater from winning (or to help one specific skater win more often) is shortsighted and counterproductive for the sport as a whole.

Sometimes there will be competitions where everyone falls and the best skaters in the event, who are trying the hardest elements, fall more than those who do easier elements or who make less obvious mistakes. In those cases, the winner is going to be a skater who fell. It should be the best skater who completed the best overall content aside from the falls, not the skater who fell the least.

Look at the big picture; the issue is not about Mr. Chan.

Under the current scale of values triple axels and quads still earn a lot of points. That's true for all skaters who attempt and rotate them.

It just so happens that Chan deserves and earns PCS significantly higher than most of his competitors and he often falls on rotated triple axels and quads. Therefore he gets a lot of points for PCS and he gets a lot of points for jumps with falls, and together those add up to winning scores. Works out well for him.

Most other skaters who fall multiple times don't win, either because they don't rotate 3.5 or more times in the air on the elements they fall on, or because they don't earn a significant PCS advantage over their competitors.

Just make sure that any rules you want to change to keep Chan from winning with falls should not also overly penalize skaters who are falling on easier jumps and/or starting with lower component scores.

lauravvv
10-06-2011, 08:11 PM
There are the actual school figures, which are now a sub-specialty not part of ISU championships
Thank you for reminding me that.

...and then there are the attributes of school figures: blade control, patterns, correct edge changes, holding the body properly over the blade. These attributes are critical for transitions and the two-minute footwork sequences (;)). The best skaters have them, even if the judges are slow to recognize them in skaters like Kozuka.
I know all of this. What I meant was that skaters are not skating figures in the classical sense anymore.

os168
10-06-2011, 08:17 PM
... are the people who are now complaining about Chan's falls are the very same people who used to complain about HIS complaints that 'having a quad is not necessary the deciding factor to win a competition?' (he probably would have worded a lot better, but then again, I doubt it... he being Chan and all :rolleyes:).

It would be highly amusing to me if you are very same ones.
If so, you only have yourselves to blame :P

Seriously... I think this whole thing is blown out of proportion.

To use an hypothetical example for the ladies. Competition wise, I have always enjoyed Mao's programs far more Miki's because, even though she were put through some horrendously over achieving arts programs that is beyond her capabilities, there were at least still enough good qualities in her skating that stood her out from the ladies, just like Patrick Chan for the men's. Despite her prone to make mistakes, I have always preferred her skates to Miki's safe, conservative, no risk programs done perfectly. In figure skating, Mao has far more admiration back in Japan and beyond.

Imagine if Mao include 2 triple axels, one in combination as well as a 3:3, fell three times, but were able to complete at least 1x triple axel as well as the 3:3s, against Miki sticking to her 2011 World Champion winning conservative program done cleanly, everything with less pace, skating skills, coverage, ambition, less difficulties or attack. I am almost certain, Mao would still outscore Miki, at home and in an ISU competition as she has been doing for years!!!

So why the double standard?

lauravvv
10-06-2011, 08:33 PM
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.
I personally didn't write that. Actually, I didn't write about falling at all. In my opinion, a skater who does quadruple jumps could win with one or, maximum, two falls, if he/she is absolutely perfect in everything else (that includes jumps from which he didn't fall). Three falls are (or at least should be) too much in any case. Likewise, a skater who skates clean, but doeasn't do any quadruple jumps, should win only if he is exceptionally great in everything he does. That would be the ideal, but situations are different in real life, and sometimes it happens that judges are forced to award someone who has skated far from perfect, simply because everyone in that competition has been far from perfect. And I am not talking about Chan now.


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.
That is exactly what I think. But, as I wrote, it often happens that no one in a competition manages to combine all of those things. So it must be decided what is more important. Not that I am truly capable of doing that.



Sometimes there will be competitions where everyone falls and the best skaters in the event, who are trying the hardest elements, fall more than those who do easier elements or who make less obvious mistakes. In those cases, the winner is going to be a skater who fell. It should be the best skater who completed the best overall content aside from the falls, not the skater who fell the least.
Once again, thank you. It's really pleasant to "hear" at least a few voices of reason among all those very different opinions. Although I wrote that I don't support skaters being able to win with three falls, I agree with mostly everything that you have written.

gkelly
10-06-2011, 09:29 PM
Although I wrote that I don't support skaters being able to win with three falls, I agree with mostly everything that you have written.

What if everyone else also falls at least three times? No one wins?

How about a junior or novice event in which you have one elite-level skater who attempts six or seven difficult jumps (double axels and triples) and falls on three of them but lands four successfully, and she has better spins and Skating Skills in the 5s?

Everyone else is only trying double jumps, any double axels that they try are not rotated, and their Skating Skills are in the 3s and 4s.

In an event like that, why shouldn't the skater with the better skating and some actual triple jumps win?

Thus my point that you can't decide in advance that a certain number of falls automatically invalidates a win.

Right now falling on quads and triple axels gives a skater a lot of points. So take away some of those points by increasing the negative GOEs, and you'll have fewer instances of skaters racking up enough points to win by falling on quads and triple axels. But if they can rack up enough points to win based on all the jumps they don't fall on plus everything else they do, who cares about the jumps they failed?

Otherwise it becomes an Ice Remaining Upright contest instead of an Ice Skating contest, and skaters will take fewer risks if they know that as soon as they fall a certain number of times they're out of the running, no matter how good everything else they do.

senorita
10-06-2011, 10:01 PM
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).

I know, i didnt claim it is called figure jumping and I dont even support this kind of idea. :)

Aussie Willy
10-06-2011, 10:06 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.
:lol: We have a new saying - 'BAN CHAN". Someone one had better make a banner for the season for it now.

For feck sake the way some people carry on here I definately think a ban is appropriate so it is one less thing for them to rabbit on about. But then they will only find something else to complain about.

It just reinforces my opinion that no matter what system you create, people are still not going to be happy with anything.

There are things happening on this planet such as wars, famines, financial crisis, global warming - now we have Chan not being punished more harshly in a small skating event probably overrides all of those.

lauravvv
10-06-2011, 10:59 PM
What if everyone else also falls at least three times? No one wins?

How about a junior or novice event in which you have one elite-level skater who attempts six or seven difficult jumps (double axels and triples) and falls on three of them but lands four successfully, and she has better spins and Skating Skills in the 5s?

Everyone else is only trying double jumps, any double axels that they try are not rotated, and their Skating Skills are in the 3s and 4s.

In an event like that, why shouldn't the skater with the better skating and some actual triple jumps win?

Thus my point that you can't decide in advance that a certain number of falls automatically invalidates a win.
Again, I actually have to agree with you. I wrote that a skater winning with no more than two falls and perfect everything else would be the ideal. But I also wrote that I understand that in real life the situation may be different - meaning - it may not be possible to avoid a skater with three or even more falls winning a competition where other skaters have performed even worse in one way or another.

nlyoung
10-07-2011, 12:27 AM
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.

It is a large proportion, but 3/14 is only 21% ;)