PDA

View Full Version : Who will make GPF in DANCE?



Pages : 1 2 [3]

mineko
11-01-2011, 05:37 AM
Another unfair advantage relates directly to monetary concern. The top 6 teams, by virtue of being the highest ranked teams, mean they have higher probability to earn prize money, and they have three opportunities to do so. This was one of the motives P/B stated as their reason for signing up for 3 events.

It means that lower ranked teams have less opportunites to medal and earn prize money.

P.S.: I apologize for being off-topic.

Pratfall
11-01-2011, 06:10 AM
I agree that the GP set-up is inherently unfair ( especially to the skaters who don't get the chance to compete in the GP because of the reduced # of entries ).
W/P feel that the more they can compete, the more they improve ( and I wonder if they might also feel that it's to their advantage to be seen as much as possible ,since before last year they were basically held out of the international scene.) You can't blame them for going for it, and hoping it doesn't backfire.

I like the Shibs and C/L very much too,So I'm finding the GP really interesting.

julieann
11-01-2011, 04:23 PM
When I wrote about money, I referred to the monetary motives of ISU/GP organizers. Like higher ranking players presumably could attract larger audiences, thereby fattening the ISU bottomline.

Who else is going to pay for it? Would you be more or less likely to buy a ticket if it were Kemp/King or Savchenko/Szolkowy?


I am not sure what you mean by "Why should the top 6 who chose three events be punished because some skaters need a do-over? I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem if Paul/Islam a medal."

How would teams who choose to skate 3 events be punished?

Because you want the top six to get two events like the other teams who donít skate nearly as well so they have a chance. Or skaters who do have a chance and mess up get another one. Instead of the top 6 skaters who really deserve it.


When I mentioned that P/I wishing an additional event for a do-over, I was fully aware that they did not have that opportunity due to their lower world ranking.

So maybe they should give lower ranked skaters four events to see if they can get up to level of the top skaters?


But that is precisely my point: To me the fairness factor comes in if three events options are available to all GP invitees.

So who will pay for every skater at the senior level (who wants to) attend two competitions and who wants to see the 20th ranked skater at a Grand Prix even twice? Isnít the Grand Prix supposed to the best of the best or close to it?


Another unfair factor is monetary concern. Top 6 teams, by virtue of being higher raking, mean that have more opportunities to earn prize money. It means less opportunities for lower ranking teams to earn prize money.

Then the lesser ranked skaters need to go to the other competitions I said and earn points and experience so they can be on the top 6 the next season.


Likewise, P/B, by having an option to skate at three events, and by having to sign up to three events, they are still potentially eligible to qualify for GPF even after withdrawing from their second event (SC); they have TEB to skate. This option is not available to lesser seaded and/or non-seaded skaters who are invited to two events. For them, if for whatever reason, they withdraw from one event, they are no longer eligible to earn enough points to qualify for GPF.

P/B will take (depending on ISU rules) a huge hit financially for withdrawing. Was it anymore fair that Kavaguti and Smirnov withdrew from Skate Canada last year and although they won the Cup of Russia, they couldn't go the GPF even though they would have most certainly medaled? Of course itís not fair, but those are the rules and I didnít hear anyone skaters/fans who got to go to the GPF in their place.


Please understand that I am not begrudging that P/B could still skate one additional event. I am happy that they have one more fighting chance. I am, however, merely pointing out the option that they have but not others.

They have the options others donít have because they have been 4th in the world for two years straight. I would rather see a few skaters have one more competition (as they have in the past) then have to sit though another skater who barely got the minimum points to enter.

Maybe they should set it up so that all the ladies and pairs who are eligible go to Skate America and all the men and dancers who are eligible go to Skate Canada so everyone has a chance and so on; but who is footing the bill?

mineko
11-02-2011, 07:22 PM
I believe that the dispute between you and I comes down to the umbiguity of the GPF format. Is it a competition or exhibition/show skating?

If it is a pure competition like nationals, giving multiple chance to skate to certain upper echelon skaters but not to others, like it is done at GPs, is out of question.

On the other hand, show skatings are money making enterprise aiming to entertain audience. To maximize the money making purpose, you want to highlight the most popular skaters as much as, and as often as possible.

I think we are having this discussion because the GP format is neither a pure competition nor the pure entertainment.

I critisize the "unfairness" of the GP format because I come from the pure comepetition perspective; you seem to take into account the pragmatic aspect of skating, e.g., need for the federations to raise fund so that they could keep holding events.

I don't think we settle what we have discussed as long as the GP format/structure attempt to be everything to everyone, that is, pretending to be a competition when its rules are not entirely consistent with a pure competition.

P.S.: By the way, I can't wait to see CoC, so we can go on predicting the GPF candidates! ;)