PDA

View Full Version : CoP programs worthy of a 6.0?



Pages : 1 [2] 3

tut88
07-12-2012, 11:43 AM
Lambiel's flamenco 2007-2008

sk8ingcoach
07-12-2012, 12:17 PM
Kostner LP worlds 2012
Kostner SP GPF 2011
Yuna Kim LP olympics
Patrick Chan SP & LP worlds 2011
Akiko Suzuki SP NHK 2011
Irina Slutskaya LP Worlds 2005
Volosozhar & Trankov LP Worlds 2012
Savchenko & Szolkowy LP Worlds 2011

Amy03
07-12-2012, 12:20 PM
Asada sp 2009 team world trophy - Clair de lune
Asada fs 2011 4cc - Liebestraum

Takahashi 2010 fs

gingercrush
07-12-2012, 12:20 PM
Asada's 2006 Skate America short program.

.

Only on the artistic side as the Triple Flutz would have prevented the 6.0. On her Short Programs World Team Trophy SP springs to mind. Both a 6.0 in required elements and artisty would have been merited.

I'm not sure any of her LPs would merit a 6.0 on artisitc side due to lack of the five normal triples and the flutz. Extremely technically difficult but not enough.

Amy03
07-12-2012, 12:26 PM
I'm not sure any of her LPs would merit a 6.0 on artisitc side due to lack of the five normal triples and the flutz. Extremely technically difficult but not enough.[/QUOTE]

well the flutz would not even have been considered a flutz in the old system it's much later the edge rules got stricter, and in her Liebestraum she had all the tripples included that should have given her 6.0 on the tech and artistic side!

gingercrush
07-12-2012, 12:31 PM
I'm not sure any of her LPs would merit a 6.0 on artisitc side due to lack of the five normal triples and the flutz. Extremely technically difficult but not enough.

well the flutz would not even have been considered a flutz in the old system it's much later the edge rules got stricter, and in her Liebestraum she had all the tripples included that should have given her 6.0 on the tech and artistic side![/QUOTE]

That really isn't true. Lack of edge was penalised under the 6.0 system.

leafygreens
07-12-2012, 03:01 PM
When I think 6.0 I think Yuna FD in 2010 Olys. It was probably the most technically clean women's OGM ever.

Amy03
07-12-2012, 03:20 PM
That really isn't true. Lack of edge was penalised under the 6.0 system.[/QUOTE]


even if it was it wasn't judged as strictly as under COP, cause asada never got any edge call on the lutz under the old system when she was competing as junior. I think it's because that when the edge is taken off from an outside edge, and the skater then slightly switches to an inside edge, it was still considered a clean lutz, while under the new system it's considered a flutz if it's not from a completely outside edge!

if one got an edge call under the old system it was pretty much because it was a VERY visible wrong edge! so they may have penalised lack of edge under the 6.0 system but not in the same strict way they are doing now!

bartek
07-12-2012, 08:03 PM
That really isn't true. Lack of edge was penalised under the 6.0 system.


even if it was it wasn't judged as strictly as under COP, cause asada never got any edge call on the lutz under the old system when she was competing as junior. I think it's because that when the edge is taken off from an outside edge, and the skater then slightly switches to an inside edge, it was still considered a clean lutz, while under the new system it's considered a flutz if it's not from a completely outside edge!

if one got an edge call under the old system it was pretty much because it was a VERY visible wrong edge! so they may have penalised lack of edge under the 6.0 system but not in the same strict way they are doing now![/QUOTE]

I agree that the judges didn't seem to penalise for flutzing or lipping under the old suystem even if they were supposed to do so. They didn't care for Sarah Hughes' severe underrotations at all even if there was a rule saying that they should have taken 0.1 from the base mark.

By the way, "VERY visible wrong edge" is exactly what Mao used to have for many years on her lutz. Under Tarasova she had a few times she took off from flat but now she came back to switching to the inside edge.

leafygreens
07-12-2012, 08:39 PM
I don't think the judges took off 0.1 because there was never any accountability. IJS has so many areas of scores and deductions, you can see where the skater messed up and if the judges took off where they were supposed to. 6.0 was pretty vague and subject to more opinion. You can only look at the programs now after the fact and be critical, which isn't that fair. I don't hold the 6.0 skaters responsible for edge calls because they never had the opportunity to fix it. And the judges were never told to take off for it. No, it wasn't fair, but that's the system everyone played by.

Amy03
07-12-2012, 10:12 PM
By the way, "VERY visible wrong edge" is exactly what Mao used to have for many years on her lutz. Under Tarasova she had a few times she took off from flat but now she came back to switching to the inside edge.[/QUOTE]


no I wouldn't call Mao's lutz as a "very visible wrong edge" since she did take of from an outside edge but before rotating then Slightly switched to an inside edge, and Mao has gotten credit for a clean lutz under tarasova, which shows that her lutz was borderline outside, this is why she sometimes managed to get full credit for it and sometimes didn't.

gkelly
07-12-2012, 10:21 PM
There was a deduction for wrong-edge takeoff written into the short-program deduction sheet (http://www.sk8stuff.com/f_rules/isu_short_program_deductions.htm) under 6.0

In that sense the judges were instructed to deduct for it -- on lutzes. I don't think anyone paid much attention to wrong edges on flips.

I don't know that there were ever any written-down instructions beyond the basic fact that it was a mandatory deduction. I imagined some referees sometimes mentioned it in pre-competition meetings and others didn't, that some judges were sticklers for correct lutz takeoffs and others weren't.

In any case, the skaters never got any specific written feedback about where they lost points in competition. They could see if their short program Required Elements scores were lower than the Presentation scores, but if they wanted to know what deductions the judges had taken they would have needed to ask each judge separately . . . or ask one and guess that others saw the same things.

shady82
07-13-2012, 12:08 AM
even if it was it wasn't judged as strictly as under COP, cause asada never got any edge call on the lutz under the old system when she was competing as junior. I think it's because that when the edge is taken off from an outside edge, and the skater then slightly switches to an inside edge, it was still considered a clean lutz, while under the new system it's considered a flutz if it's not from a completely outside edge!

if one got an edge call under the old system it was pretty much because it was a VERY visible wrong edge! so they may have penalised lack of edge under the 6.0 system but not in the same strict way they are doing now!

I agree that the judges didn't seem to penalise for flutzing or lipping under the old suystem even if they were supposed to do so. They didn't care for Sarah Hughes' severe underrotations at all even if there was a rule saying that they should have taken 0.1 from the base mark.

By the way, "VERY visible wrong edge" is exactly what Mao used to have for many years on her lutz. Under Tarasova she had a few times she took off from flat but now she came back to switching to the inside edge.[/QUOTE]

Sarah definitely got penalized for her jumping flaws (URs and flutzes). This explains why her technical merit score ranges at international competitions are usually 5.4-5.6, even though she does a 3l-2r. Even at 2001 Worlds, where she landed 7 triples including a 3s-3r, she still got a 5.3 for technical merit. At the 2002 Olympics, she got no higher than 5.8 for technical merit.

Of course, under CoP, she would be penalized much more heavily than under 6.0, but the judges definitely lowered her base mark.

shady82
07-13-2012, 12:11 AM
I think a 6.0 for presentation should be reserved only for programs that would receive a 5.9 if skated well, but in this case the particular performance went above and beyond.

This is why I don't, for example, think Slutskaya's 2005 LP merited a 6.0 for either mark. Some of her spins, IMO, were sloppy, such as her COE scratch spin. The choreography itself was sloppy as well, though it was an emotional and memorable program. I'd maybe give her a 5.9 for both marks, but not a 6.0. Her best performance ever was really at the 2000-01 GPF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SXO6s3MCDw. She got a 6.0 for technical merit here, and deservedly so.

bartek
07-13-2012, 12:24 AM
By the way, "VERY visible wrong edge" is exactly what Mao used to have for many years on her lutz. Under Tarasova she had a few times she took off from flat but now she came back to switching to the inside edge.


no I wouldn't call Mao's lutz as a "very visible wrong edge" since she did take of from an outside edge but before rotating then Slightly switched to an inside edge, and Mao has gotten credit for a clean lutz under tarasova, which shows that her lutz was borderline outside, this is why she sometimes managed to get full credit for it and sometimes didn't.[/QUOTE]

Are you insane? Mao's entrance looked exactly the same on both lutz and flip for years, going into deep outside edge and then switching to deep inside edge before the take off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKd2t0qvNdU it's clearly flutz

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl4gyYLhQhQ&t=4m16s now, this is her triple flip and listen to what British Eurosport guys say. Then you have the slow-motion of the flutz, exactly the same way she rolls back to the deep inside edge.

You're describing it as if it wasn't that much of a problem. Sometimes she did it properly, sometimes not. That's wrong. You're a biased uber. Mao got credit for clean triple lutz only once or twice at best and it was under Tarasova. Bedore that, she had always terrible entrance to the lutz, terrible technique and clearly wrong edge though she had wonderful height and flow out of this jump.

Recently, under Sato, her technique has improved significantly, however she still flutzes.