PDA

View Full Version : Hersh article



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

museksk8r
11-08-2011, 07:49 PM
Similarly, I think that just about anyone can see that Patrick Chan's actual skating is better than that of any of his rivals.

:blah: Sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling/I'm not drinking the Chan-aid. Abbott, Takahashi, and Kozuka can compete with Chan's actual skating.

berthesghost
11-08-2011, 08:00 PM
I think "casual fans" are getting a lot less credit here for understanding what they see than they deserve.Thank You!

JMO, but fs has always suffered for it's snobby elitist attitudes, and this thread shows that many of it's fans are no better. :slinkaway

Vagabond
11-08-2011, 10:15 PM
:blah: Sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling/I'm not drinking the Chan-aid. Abbott, Takahashi, and Kozuka can compete with Chan's actual skating.

Then come have a sip of Chan chai instead. :)

I think it's close, and I would say that all three of them are potentially at least as good as he is at PE and IN, but I think that Chan has a distinct advantage with respect to SS. Mind you, that's from watching on T.V. and the Internet. Perhaps it seems different if you're there at the arena. Then again, the judges almost uniformly give Chan the highest marks for SS in head-to-head competition.

UGG
11-08-2011, 11:33 PM
But do you think figure skating should be judged based on what casual fans think? Most casual fans can't tell the difference between an Ace and a slightly wide serve or a foot fault and no foot fault in tennis, but that doesn't mean the slightly wide serve or the serve with a foot fault should count. I don't understand what icing the puck is, but I'm not going argue that it shouldn't be called. In fact I can think of many hockey games where goals were disallowed and the other team won "on a technicality" where I didn't understand why the goal wasn't allowed. How are those calls any different than a skater getting points for superior skating skills or more complicated entries to jumps that the casual fan doesn't see or understand? Should hockey just say the winner is the one who scores the most goal even if those goals, under the current rules, shouldn't be counted?
Wait, as a Canucks fan maybe that would be a good idea :D

Oh no not at all. I was responding to the individual who basically said people who could not tell the difference between figure skaters were idiots. Nothing to do with the judging. Some people just cannot see the difference. i was 100% a casual fan during SLC and I thought Sarah Hughes LP was amazing LOL. Now when I watch it 9 years later-I see the program soooooo different than what I thought I saw in 2002. (I became a Kwan uber after SLC and have followed figure skating regularly ever since after that season.)

And I would totally consider my husband somewhat a "casual fan"....at least as far as what we are referring to here. He watches with me during the Olympics. He actually got really into the 2007 men's long program at the US nationals LOL. It was on at a bar we were at and he was making all these comments like he knew what he was talking about-it was so funny

minignome
11-08-2011, 11:43 PM
Leaving aside the minutiae of base values and grades of execution, most viewers can understand and accept that if Skater A does one element that is harder than anything Skater B does and Skater B has one more fall than Skater A, it doesn't necessarily follow that Skater A should beat Skater B. Yes, it takes a little bit of work to educate the viewer, but it's not all that difficult.

But I think that's the problem -- at least here in the US there is little attempt to educate the viewer. Example, commentary during Rachel's free skate at SC -- we heard a "she's leaving a lot of points on the table" . Gee, what is the value of lots? They could have said "by doubling that lutz, she just lost at least x points".

I am not saying that the commentators have to give the values of EVERY jump every time -- you don't want to annoy people who already know or turn it into a math lesson. However, they could give specifics which would help someone who just happened to stop here in channel surfing understand what's going on.

I'm beyond the casual fan but not in the rabid category -- I can tell the basic jumps, who the current skaters are (I am aware that Michelle Kwan is not competing anymore) but can't tell you who skated to what at the '91 Euros. I don't know the base values of all the jumps, but if I was paid to watch figure skating and talk about you can bet I'd know the values, and I'd try to pass on the knowledge.

Vagabond
11-08-2011, 11:45 PM
Michelle Kwan is not competing anymore

:eek: :fragile: :wuzrobbed

gkelly
11-09-2011, 12:35 AM
I don't know the base values of all the jumps, but if I was paid to watch figure skating and talk about you can bet I'd know the values, and I'd try to pass on the knowledge.

I haven't memorized all the base values either, especially after the latest round of revisions. I do know the general ranges of values, but if I wanted to say something specific about points lost or gained, I'd have to look up the specifics.

Commentators can have a copy of the Scale of Values open close at hand for reference. And various other documents. They're not going to use every resource for every skater, or even necessarily for every competition. But if a situation comes up that could use explanation, it's good to supply the relevant facts.

minignome
11-09-2011, 01:15 AM
Commentators can have a copy of the Scale of Values open close at hand for reference. And various other documents. They're not going to use every resource for every skater, or even necessarily for every competition. But if a situation comes up that could use explanation, it's good to supply the relevant facts.

Yes, and in all the years since COP has been adopted, I've rarely heard the relevant facts.

As a contrast, I'm also a football fan -- probably watch slightly more of that than figure skating just because there is more opportunity. Without any additional effort on my part, I can give you a reasonable explanation of pass interference, the situations where the challenge flag can be thrown and when things get thrown up to the booth for review. Why? Because at some point the commentators have told me.

But when I watch figure skating, I get "it's just so hard to get back into a program after a fall", "your legs are so tired at the end", "they really fought for that landing". Thank you oh masters of the obvious. The commentators are still yakking like it's the 6.0 system and they have no clue as to how the judges will decide. But, under COP they should be able to give you a reasonable range of TES.
Ok, will get off my soapbox now :-)

mag
11-09-2011, 02:05 AM
^^ This!!

BreakfastClub
11-09-2011, 06:55 AM
The commentators are still yakking like it's the 6.0 system and they have no clue as to how the judges will decide.

That's because the GOE and PCS are more arbitrary than 6.0 ever was and they don't know how the judges will decide. In fact, they probably have less idea now.

Why don't all the CoP apologists understand this?

The TES base mark can be explained easily, even if it would take 10 minutes to dissect one program for all the spin/ftw levels and jump elements for rotations and errors.

But GOE? When you see one judge give a -2 and another a 0 for the same element, how should they explain that?

Then there's the mandated corridor marking and obvious use of PCS as a tool to rank the skaters. (Which was the objective for the judges under 6.0 - to rank them!) How does one justify those, especially as a superior solution to 6.0? How long would it take to explain why Daisuke only got 7.86 on his Transitions but Patrick got 8.54 on his Transitions, especially after you've rolled back 4 1/2 minutes of video and count that Patrick has more crossovers, power pulls or simple pushes and fewer difficult element entrires/exits.

One other thing that I never understand and see pervasive in this thread - why don't most knowledgeable fans seem to understand that under 6.0 the marks didn't mean anything, they were a method for ranking skaters. It was the ordinal that mattered. If you claim "I never knew how they came up with those marks under 6.0" you are a casual fan too, not a knowledgeable one.


This is Janet Lynn's Free Skate from the 1972 Olympics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS581_gagjM (with the fall on flying sit spin at 1:48). I think that just about anyone can see that, notwithstanding the fall, Lynn was the better free skater.

Similarly, I think that just about anyone can see that Patrick Chan's actual skating is better than that of any of his rivals.

On this Janet Lynn v Trixie Schuba example: it wasn't that average folks saw that Janet had better edges or deeper lobes (or all the stuff that Mr. Chan has) it's that Janet knew how to project to an audience and perform. I would argue Patrick does this, but no more and perhaps even less so than Daisuke, Jeremy, Florent and many of the other current top guys on any given day.

So onto my CoP rant...
This is the aspect that has been lost under CoP - the aspect that the overall performance matters more than the minutiae. Under 6.0 a skater could get lost in a performance without worrying about a slight underrotation here, a missed position or step costing a level there. They could let the music and emotion dictate the character of the footwork, not the number of counters, brackets and mohawks with flailing arms that represent "upper body use" in the quest for levels. They could even do crazy things like throw in a "hail Mary" triple axel at the end of the program (see: Stojko, Eldredge) and have you jump out of your seat in excitement when they succeeded or sag and throw your head in your hands when they fail (see Eldredge)... oops, no more "throw it in at the end" if you pop it or miss it now, you've used up your 8 jumping passes!

Where has this type of freedom and excitement to close a program gone? Or the sheer joy and celebration when it's over?
http://youtu.be/kFurTW8OHxM?t=4m56s

Or finished with joy and projection to the audience like this? http://youtu.be/M0fvU4wnp34?t=3m11s (Not to mention that there are - gasp two clearly underrotated jumps in this clip that should not encourage joy, and the two spins are verboten under CoP - these are killer spins #4 and #5 in the program... 3 is now the limit. Zero points for you, Lucinda Ruh :P!!)

When's the last time you saw a skater with this level of flight and freedom in their footwork bring the house down like this?
http://youtu.be/VfeTIMbo2xM?t=3m16s (Oops, those are spins #4 and 5 too! Too bad, Stephane!)

Or freedom like this? http://youtu.be/ypPkvKCuVOo?t=3m42s

It's this aspect that allowed Phillipe Candeloro to land on two Olympic podiums with some of the crappiest basic skating skills and sloppiest technique that I've ever seen at that level.

But what's footwork is more exciting and memorable? (let alone the overall programs)
This? http://youtu.be/drqHhldGSJs?t=3m46s
Or This? http://youtu.be/cN0EjO9eSjE?t=4m31s (can't believe I can't find his O's performance on youtube :eek:)

14 years later, I can still vividly recall the choreographic details of Candeloro's bronze medal program and the "OMG OMG! He actually stood up all the jumps, he fought for them all!" aspect of his performance that made it exciting. Today that memorable and amazing performance (for which no one questioned his bronze) would have been nothing but video replays for underrotations, -1 and -2's on the wonkola jumps and level 1 on the other elements. :blah:

2 years later, I can't recall a damn thing of Evan's Olympic win except arms and legs failing left and right in the name of levels and that there were nitpicky arguments everywhere about how he should or should not have been dinged for the pre-rotation on his triple axel and that his win was controversial (to some ;)) over Plushenko. :(

I don't care so much what marking system is used but I do hate that the current one says the sum of the parts is greater than the whole, and has set off a race for technical intricacy and paint-by-numbers that has -- in all but rare cases (e.g. Stephanie Rosenthal 2006 US Nationals, Takahashi 2010 Worlds) -- killed the joy.

It's this sense of freedom and performance, something Janet Lynn had mastered beyond edges, lines and lobes, that made figure skating a great sport that had mass appeal. Sadly, CoP has all but killed it.

berthesghost
11-09-2011, 02:12 PM
Breakfast club, I think I love you! :P

Vagabond
11-09-2011, 02:52 PM
That's because the GOE and PCS are more arbitrary than 6.0 ever was and they don't know how the judges will decide. In fact, they probably have less idea now.

Why don't all the CoP apologists understand this?

Say goodnight, Gracie. :)

RD
11-09-2011, 05:01 PM
I think- as time goes on, and skaters who have competed ONLY under the new system emerge- that things will be different.

As it stands now, things are still being ironed out with the scoring, it seems- and as long as skaters have to do mass adjustments to keep up, you're going to see more of the status quo.

If I want to see the "performance" aspect of skating- well, that's what shows are for, right?

IceAlisa
11-09-2011, 05:05 PM
I think it's close, and I would say that all three of them are potentially at least as good as he is at PE and IN, but I think that Chan has a distinct advantage with respect to SS.

I think anyone who understands skating can see how superior Chan's SS really are. I used to just watch his feet but now that he's become so musical, I don't know what to watch first. :lol: I agree that many skaters are just as good at PE and IN, some even better but Patrick is rapidly gaining on those.

gkelly
11-09-2011, 05:11 PM
Abbott and Takahashi touch me more emotionally, but Chan impresses me more with effortlessness and depth of edge. At least on video.