PDA

View Full Version : Most poorly judged competitions



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

Jenna
07-11-2011, 08:23 AM
I think B/A should've won bronze too. I mentioned that up thread. I agree that it is a bit easier to move up/down in the standings now, but not that much. Usually never more then a place or two.

Twilight1
07-11-2011, 08:31 AM
It was really ironic too, last year was the 1st time since 2001-2 that I really liked B&A too. They were robbed bigtime. :lol:

Jenna
07-11-2011, 08:33 AM
It was really ironic too, last year was the 1st time since 2001-2 that I really liked B&A too. They were robbed bigtime. :lol:

Oh well, it would've been tough for the judges not to put a Euro team on the podium.

But it happened a year later at Worlds. :lol:

Twilight1
07-11-2011, 08:38 AM
I think I&K are the future for Russian ice dance IMVHO. Won't surprise me in the slightest if they win Oly gold in Sochi.

Susan M
07-11-2011, 11:55 AM
... Anissina&Peizerat were technically and artistically superior to FP&M. So, I don't see how clean A&P can finish behind FP&M. ;)
I think politics pretty much ruled the dance results almost from 85 thru 2002 and produced a lot of bad judging, but I think I would nominate pretty much any ice dance event from about 1999 - 2006 as especially badly judged. I (and a lot of others) thought Fusar-Poli/Margaglio were overmarked and over-rewarded pretty much their whole careers. She had a graceless, style-less, bull-in-a-China-shop approach to dance and he was markedly weak technically for a final flight skater. While F-P/M got good results in spite of this weakness, the same imbalance problem was what nailed Drobiasco/Vanagas. I think Drobiasco was perhaps even weaker than Margaglio, but the real difference was that they skated for a country with no ISU influence, unlike Italy.

Ice dance was going thru a weird patch between 98 and 2002, when a number of the top teams were pretty imbalanced and the judges were really inconsistent/confused on whether to place the team based on the stronger member or based on the weaker. IMO that is a big reason we see so much emphasis in COP on side by side moves like the SBS twizzles and the no-touch step sequences.

Celine82
07-11-2011, 01:24 PM
I read through this thread very quickly, so sorry if it's been mentionned already...

2004 Euros (Budapest), men. Brian winning is about the only placement that makes sense to me. How on earth the judges put Plushenko and his LP meltdown in 2nd is beyond my understanding. IMO Dambier should have been 2nd in the LP, beating Klimkin overall, and Plush should have been around 6th in the LP.

minuet
07-11-2011, 01:36 PM
I agree about the dance in 2001. I don't remember exactly what the pairs did in their programs, but as someone who thought B/S were overmarked quite often, I'm thinking I probably WOULDN'T agree.



Sale singled her double axel. This program was more sophisticated than Love Story with a lot more interesting in-between moves. Not that it counted like it would have in early COP years but this program also had a second death spiral and harder lifts.

B&S crashed the 3 twist, Anton had a small step-out on their sequence, and their throw loop was anything but steady. They also received a lot of criticism during the year for the middle of their Chaplin program for the huge pause/rest period.
I loved this program but had to agree that their step sequence really didn't come off as a step sequence.

It really could have gone either way and the momentum was with S&P for the year who had won other events (GPF) with poorer skates.

Spartacus
07-11-2011, 02:12 PM
S&P won that OGM fair and square. However, how many times have we seen the clear winner of the event take home the silver? Urmanov over Stojko. Baiul over Kerrigan. etc So why should S&P get a GM?

IMO, B&S are the 2002 OGM. Period. Yes, their skate was poor and sloppy and OSM worthy, but the only reason S&P got a GM is because of the controversy. If in your opinion S&P were rightfully given the GM, then so should Kerrigan and Stojko and the many others that have been robbed.

briancoogaert
07-11-2011, 02:38 PM
S&P won that OGM fair and square. However, how many times have we seen the clear winner of the event take home the silver? Urmanov over Stojko. Baiul over Kerrigan. etc So why should S&P get a GM?

IMO, B&S are the 2002 OGM. Period. Yes, their skate was poor and sloppy and OSM worthy, but the only reason S&P got a GM is because of the controversy. If in your opinion S&P were rightfully given the GM, then so should Kerrigan and Stojko and the many others that have been robbed.
So, because some has been robbed in the past, it's not a problem to rob in the future ? ^^

Anyway, I don't think B&S's skate was poor and sloppy, and I don't think S&P won fair and square.

Macassar88
07-11-2011, 04:06 PM
I think that B&S should have been lower than S&P technically, but they should have been higher artistically and won the gold. They had so many difficult and innovative transitions, and they had a more emotional skate. That should make up for the mistakes.

Triple Butz
07-11-2011, 04:26 PM
I think that B&S should have been lower than S&P technically, but they should have been higher artistically and won the gold. They had so many difficult and innovative transitions, and they had a more emotional skate. That should make up for the mistakes.

I think it was a competition that could have gone either way, and it should have been left alone to be debated by the fans like so many others. As I said before, even in CoP there is no "perfectly judged" competition, so when the thread title is "most poorly" judged, it makes me wonder why so many people bring up close calls. This should be about blatant mismarking and misuse of the rules.

escaflowne9282
07-11-2011, 05:10 PM
Sale singled her double axel. This program was more sophisticated than Love Story with a lot more interesting in-between moves. Not that it counted like it would have in early COP years but this program also had a second death spiral and harder lifts.

B&S crashed the 3 twist, Anton had a small step-out on their sequence, and their throw loop was anything but steady. They also received a lot of criticism during the year for the middle of their Chaplin program for the huge pause/rest period.
I loved this program but had to agree that their step sequence really didn't come off as a step sequence.

It really could have gone either way and the momentum was with S&P for the year who had won other events (GPF) with poorer skates.

Just a note, B&S did not have a mistake during the jump sequence, Anton took off his heel, and had a weird air position ,but it was completed cleanly and was ratified .

I thought the LP could have gone either way. What I found very strange in the 2001 Pairs SP was S&P's placement in the SP. She fell on the SBS jump yet they were barely third on a 5-4 split with S&Z, and well ahead of many cleaner pairs.

Cheylana
07-11-2011, 06:12 PM
You're missing the point entirely, which is that none of the medalists were my "favorites" so my criticisms in regards to the way the were judged in terms of PCS has nothing to do with favoritism towards them. It has to do with the performances they gave and the skills they displayed in relation to the PCS guidelines. I addressed this in the first part of my post, which you didn't quote. It's in fact an excellent example, because the skaters whose placements I questioned are not favorites of mine.
I don't think I'm missing the point. Even among a person's so-called non "favorites" people still have a pecking order of whose style/aesthetics they prefer. Unless you are telling me you equally liked - or disliked, as the case may be - the three medalists (which I would find very difficult to believe).

But anyway, here's the first part of your post that I failed to include the first time around:

Thats a generalization. PCS is actually not supposed to be as subjective is as people think...it's actually mapped out fairly clearly.
It can't be that clear, as people rigorously debate the PCS used at just about every competition, and people argue different portions of the CoP to bolster their point of view. ;)

Seerek
07-11-2011, 06:53 PM
Some of the competitions noted here were rather poorly skated by the balance of the field - maybe not complete splat-fests, but lots of minor to major errors to go around. It would have been difficult to get any consensus as to the "correct" order of the results.

Also note that the different scoring systems penalized different kinds of errors more severely (e.g. under-rotations from Nakano at 2008 Worlds were more treated more severely than Kostner's several step outs)

Triple Butz
07-11-2011, 06:59 PM
I don't think I'm missing the point. Even among a person's so-called non "favorites" people still have a pecking order of whose style/aesthetics they prefer. Unless you are telling me you equally liked - or disliked, as the case may be - the three medalists (which I would find very difficult to believe).

But anyway, here's the first part of your post that I failed to include the first time around:

It can't be that clear, as people rigorously debate the PCS used at just about every competition, and people argue different portions of the CoP to bolster their point of view. ;)
You're talking about fans, not judges.