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

IceAlisa
11-03-2011, 05:48 AM
Here's Patrick's FS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3C2wPo5zKc

You can tell us were else Patrick didn't control his speed as to merit further loss of points in PCS.

agalisgv
11-03-2011, 05:48 AM
Maybe. You're probably better at noticing this than me, since I'm usually too mesmerized by his skating :P but I wouldn't be surprised if I watched his program at worlds with some mileage and started seeing what you mean by more control of his speed. It has happened before when I thought he couldn't skate any better, and he proved me wrong :swoon:

Yeah, I would be surprised if he didn't improve, and I would like to see that reflected in his scores as the season progresses. But I do agree with you that his basics are really sublime.

IceAlisa
11-03-2011, 05:51 AM
A fall on a jump gets an automatic -3 GOE *in addition to* the -1. That results in a total loss of 3-4 points off the total score for a fall on a jump. That's 4x more penalty than a fall on a non-element.
But you wanted a total of -3 deducted for a non-element fall. Sounds about equal to me. Since you said:


No, instead of a -1 from the final score, make it a -3. So a fall on a quad should be about equal in deduction to a fall on a non-element?
:confused:

Any luck with finding Chan's lack of control?

operagirl
11-03-2011, 06:01 AM
Two judges gave Chang -1's for falling on a jump. His ass on the ice is two points better than every other skater in the entire competition!? EVERY skater at Skate Canada, with the exception of Chang, got a -3 for their fall.

And why doesn't the ISU reward jumping with one or both hands overhead with a difficulty mark? It clearly is more difficult: The center of gravity and take off are changed to make the jump happen. Why isn't the USFSA suggesting this?

IceAlisa
11-03-2011, 06:02 AM
^^^That would be Chan, not Chang. :shuffle: I also do think it matters whether a skater had fully rotated a jump before they fell.




And why doesn't the ISU reward jumping with one or both hands overhead with a difficulty mark? It clearly is more difficult: The center of gravity and take off are changed to make the jump happen. Why isn't the USFSA suggesting this?
I don't think it's necessarily clear that say, both arms overhead is more difficult. Why would skaters do them if they didn't rack up more points and risk a fall?

I did hear, however, that for some skaters the variation of the arm position actually stabilizes the jump.

overedge
11-03-2011, 06:28 AM
Dock those high scoring top skaters! :lynch: OccupyIce!!!! :mitchell:

What do we want? DEDUCTIONS!
When do we want them? NOW!!!

Hey hey! Ho ho! Chanflation has got to go!!

Everybody's talkin' bout
Chan-skating
Fall-making
High-flying
Butt-sliding
Fast-spinning
Still winning
All we are saaaayyying
Is GIVE LOWER MARKS!!!!

IceAlisa
11-03-2011, 06:29 AM
What do we want? DEDUCTIONS!
When do we want them? NOW!!!

Hey hey! Ho ho! Chanflation has got to go!!

Everybody's talkin' bout
Chan-skating
Fall-making
High-flying
Butt-sliding
Fast-spinning
Still winning
All we are saaaayyying
Is GIVE LOWER MARKS!!!!
:rofl::rofl::rofl: Brilliant!

MacMadame
11-03-2011, 06:51 AM
But one would argue that if you fall 3/4 times that's not a decent performance.
I repeat: Read the rule book.


I think the fall deduction on jumps is adequate bc as you pointed out, it works out to -3 to -4 altogether from the score. But on non-element falls, there's only a -1 deduction, and that I don't think is adequate. I think in theory, the PE score is meant to be deducted to add to the -1, but that doesn't always happen.
And you know this doesn't happen because.... ? Unless you know what the marks would have been without the fall, you don't know if the judges took a deduction or not. Unless they specifically told you they took no deduction, which I doubt happened.

As for what a fall on a non-element should count as, I think that should be very variable as different falls impact the performance to different degrees. And that's exactly what the rules state. It's at the judges discretion as to what to take off the PE mark based on their own judgement as to how the fall impacted the performance.

agalisgv
11-03-2011, 12:35 PM
As for what a fall on a non-element should count as, I think that should be very variable as different falls impact the performance to different degrees. In practice it's not very variable though. The variability range btw different program components is rather small (usually btw .25-.75 pts). One could argue whether that's by design (judging corridor) or execution (judges generally keep all pcs within a tight range even if technically they could vary it more), but I think it's difficult to argue there's tremendous variability btw the different program components.

mag
11-03-2011, 03:43 PM
Darn, this is a tough room...
Part one: We have complaints and drama, OMG Buttle is getting too many points for his Buttle bounce after his quad. He has fallen, damn it, he must be penalized. Out come calls for changes. The system is tweaked.

Part two: OMG we have a world champion and an olympic champion who didn't land a quad. The sky is falling, the sport is regressing, we are taking the "sport" out of figure skating. The rules are tweaked again.

Part three: OMG we have skaters with messy programs :rofl: (sorry but I don't see how Chan's LP could be considered messy, but whatever) we need to penalize falls more severely.

The reality, as I see it, is that there is no perfect combination that will make everyone happy all of the time. It seems to me that the current system is encouraging calculated risks, while still rewarding well rounded skaters who skate, spin, and jump well. Has anyone considered how these changes mess with skaters' training plans. If we want the sport to continue and grown, stability is important. Skaters and coaches need to be able to make multi year plans both for training and strategy. Every time a change is made it can affect those plans.

IceAlisa
11-03-2011, 03:48 PM
In practice it's not very variable though. The variability range btw different program components is rather small (usually btw .25-.75 pts). One could argue whether that's by design (judging corridor) or execution (judges generally keep all pcs within a tight range even if technically they could vary it more), but I think it's difficult to argue there's tremendous variability btw the different program components.

However, it still doesn't mean points weren't taken off.

I am very curious to hear what other "speed control" issues you'd noticed with Chan's skating and have helpfully provided the link of the free skate.

Please share.

Also, you still haven't responded as to why you think a fall on a jump should have an equal penalty in points to a fall on a non-element.

agalisgv
11-03-2011, 04:34 PM
Has anyone considered how these changes mess with skaters' training plans. If we want the sport to continue and grown, stability is important. Skaters and coaches need to be able to make multi year plans both for training and strategy. Every time a change is made it can affect those plans.:confused:

Has there been a year where changes *haven't* been made to COP? And yet, somehow the skaters somehow managed to continue their training.

Generally the tweaks made each year to COP tend to come out of scoring problems identified the previous year, and for the most part the scoring system is improved as a result of those tweaks.

aaron
11-03-2011, 05:48 PM
Darn, this is a tough room...
Part one: We have complaints and drama, OMG Buttle is getting too many points for his Buttle bounce after his quad. He has fallen, damn it, he must be penalized. Out come calls for changes. The system is tweaked.

Part two: OMG we have a world champion and an olympic champion who didn't land a quad. The sky is falling, the sport is regressing, we are taking the "sport" out of figure skating. The rules are tweaked again.

Part three: OMG we have skaters with messy programs :rofl: (sorry but I don't see how Chan's LP could be considered messy, but whatever) we need to penalize falls more severely.


Very nice summary :hat1:

Part four: Severe penalty for falls
Part five: No quads in Sochi (Chan still win with no quad nor 3A :P)

History repeats itself :lol:

berthesghost
11-03-2011, 06:05 PM
:confused:

Has there been a year where changes *haven't* been made to COP? And yet, somehow the skaters somehow managed to continue their training.

Generally the tweaks made each year to COP tend to come out of scoring problems identified the previous year, and for the most part the scoring system is improved as a result of those tweaks.
Yes, every year the rules are chaged, the skaters, coaches and choreographers scramble to keep up, and then we fans all sit back and complain "all they do is follow rules, where's the artistic interpretation". Then they change the rules yet again. :lol:

Yes, scoring problems. First you get credit for a quad even if you fall, so you train it. Then you get severly penalized for any ur etc... So you stop training it. Then you get extra credit for it, so you train it again. Now if there are stricter deductions for errors, you'll stop again. So, apparently a skater training a quad or not is just merely some scoring paperwork and doesn't affect training at all. :lol:

agalisgv
11-03-2011, 06:45 PM
First you get credit for a quad even if you fall, so you train it. Then you get severly penalized for any ur etc... So you stop training it. Then you get extra credit for it, so you train it again. Now if there are stricter deductions for errors, you'll stop again. So, apparently a skater training a quad or not is just merely some scoring paperwork and doesn't affect training at all. :lol: You really think skaters are doing quads based only on changes to COP? I think it has more to do with the fact that skaters are now consistently landing quads unlike before. There was a point when few of the leading male skaters could consistently land a quad, so you didn't need one to win. When Plush returned, that changed. So skaters began training quads more bc there were now skaters who could consistently land them.

As a parallel, if no one on the ladies side can consistently land a 3-3, you won't have as many skaters training them bc they won't be necessary to win. But that's a matter of how strong the competition is--not COP.