Bronze medal at the 98 Olympics- Slutskaya, Chen, or Butyrskaya

Discussion in 'The Trash Can' started by butyrskafanatic, Jul 14, 2013.

?

Who should have been given bronze by judges for their skates in Nagano

  1. Butyrskaya

    84 vote(s)
    53.5%
  2. Slutskaya

    53 vote(s)
    33.8%
  3. Chen

    64 vote(s)
    40.8%
  4. someone else

    29 vote(s)
    18.5%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. butyrskafanatic

    butyrskafanatic Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    Messages:
    187
    I also thought Maria should have been 2nd in the short and Lu 5th behind Bonaly which would have guaranteed Maria beating Lu overall anyway. My short marks were:

    Kwan- 5.8, 6.0
    Maria- 5.7, 5.8
    Tara- 5.7, 5.6
    Surya- 5.5, 5.5
    Lu- 5.1, 5.6

    Lu was also super lucky there werent more clean shorts. Her program could easily have been 9th or 10th place had it been a well skated event. Maria would have at worst been 4th or 5th only since she was unlucky to skate so early, and could still have been 3rd in the short even had everyone skated well.
     
  2. David21

    David21 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,030

    There is no judging system in the world, especially not 6.0, where jumps, which *might* have had a sligh touch down of the free foot (this is different from a "two foot landing"), were considered cleaner than jumps which were underroated. And in Chen's case, some of her jumps were not slightly underroated, they were BADLY underrotated.
     
  3. VIETgrlTerifa

    VIETgrlTerifa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    10,129
    Except in the system that awarded Chen the bronze over Butryskaya. You can say five of the nine judges misapplied the rules in place, but she received consistent tech marks all around.
     
  4. KimGOAT

    KimGOAT Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    719
    Under 6.0 thinking Chen had 5 clean triples and 7 credible attempts of triples. 2 clean triple lutzes, and a clean triple-toe, with a not clean triple-triple. Butyrskaya under 6.0 thinking had 3 clean triples and 5 credible attempts of triples. Butyrskaya also skated far below her artistic potential and was stiff, slow, nervous. Maria had atleast the bronze in the bag, and had she duplicated her 99 Worlds performance she might have even snatched a few votes higher and flipped the ordinal between Kwan and Lipinski to make Michelle the winner (well that was my hope and prayer watching at the time anyway), but she gave it away with a very weak performance. I dont know why people dont just accept she gave away the medal by skating poorly, rather than making excuses for why she didnt win it.

    Had Maria landed her triple lutz cleanly and still made all her other mistakes she would have gotten the bronze. Had Maria landed her triple flip cleanly and still made all her other mistakes she would have gotten the bronze. Had Maria done her last triple toe she would have gotten the bronze. Had Maria done her last triple loop she would have gotten the bronze. Had Maria landed her first triple loop well and tacked a double toe on it she would have gotten the bronze. Had Maria skated with a smidge more artistry and conviction that night she would have gotten the bronze. She had countless chances to make up the points and did everything possible to lose it.

    Chen would have come about 8th at those Games if everyone did their best but she was the only one besides Tara to truly skate her best at that event and she capatilized on others underperforming. She was super lucky I agree, but it wasnt her fault. Maria skated very poorly, and Irina did too when one factors in her short program, and both still nearly beat her. Bobek with her U.S National performances probably would have even beaten her.

    Chen was never one to get gifts by judges anyway. She even was robbed a few times in her career, like the 93 and 96 Worlds.
     
  5. KimGOAT

    KimGOAT Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    719
    There were many times in her career Maria was hard done by judges, including the 96 and 97 Worlds and that is probably why some are arguing her being robbed at the 98 Olympics too. However unlike those other events she did herself in. In those other events it was the judges, but in Nagano the judges were willing to reward her, and that is shown by how high they scored her even for such a weak performance that was nowhere near her best either technically or artistically.
     
  6. orientalplane

    orientalplane Mad for mangelwurzels

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    Messages:
    10,790
    You're quite right; well said. Kim should have got the medal, even though she was just mastering the transition from crawling to standing at the time.
     
    PeterG and (deleted member) like this.
  7. David21

    David21 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,030

    Sarah Hughes also received "consistent tech marks all around" most of the times she skated. Judges simply didn't spot the underrotation or chose to ignore them, I posted this already in this thread.
     
  8. VIETgrlTerifa

    VIETgrlTerifa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    10,129
    I misunderstood your first post. I thought you were saying there was no judging system in the world in which an underrotated jump was cleaner than a two-footed one.
     
  9. Marco

    Marco Missing Ziggy

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    11,341
    Remember Bonaly and her 5.9s?
     
  10. judgejudy27

    judgejudy27 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    13,505
    Bonaly was undermarked at the 93 Worlds and overmarked at every other competition of her career. That is how I would sum her up best. Her 94 Worlds LP would have seen a 5.4 or 5.5 for technical merit (a lower tech. mark than her presentation mark) had judges marked down UR and similar technical issues properly then. Not to mention her 95 Worlds LP which was littered with almost all 5.9s for technical merit to push an inspired Kwan off the podium, and nearly won her the title despite her usual deservedly low pres. marks, would have had only about 2 or 3 clean triples if judges marked off UR and similar issues correctly then. Clearly they didnt, and so that applies to the 98 Olympics too, and how people should be reasonable to look at things through a 6.0 standard and not COP.

    I dont want to take the thread off topic but I always want to slap Bonaly hard when I see her outburst at the 94 Worlds as she didnt deserve even a single 1st place ordinal at those Worlds. Even her jumps sucked that night, atleast Sato did 6 really clean ones with only one shaky landing. Much higher technical marks than Sato with that night weaker jumps, much weaker spins, much weaker footwork, much less speed and much weaker basic skating, GTFO, she was so overscored in fact. She should have chosen the 93 Worlds to behave like that if she was ever going to, as that is the only time her whole career she was genuinely robbed of anything. Well that and the 1998 Olympics short program perhaps, but it clearly ends right there.
     
  11. JJS5056

    JJS5056 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    167
    You didn't misunderstand- the post in question contradicts itself throughout. It says that no system considers under-rotation worse, but then goes on to justify reasons for discrediting Lu's cheated jumps. I think the intended point, based on other posts, is that the system considered chested jumps as flawed, but that the judges chose to ignore them.

    Regardless, "slight" touch-downs were considered 2-footed, flawed and were not credited under 6.0; that's not really debatable. Thus, Maria's lutz and flip would not have been considered completed triple jumps.

    Underrotations, OTOH, weren't as cut and dry, as evidenced by all the discussion here and by the wide range of marks for Lu and similar instances, like many of Bonaly's free skates. The most likely scenario is that anything less than 1/2 turn cheat was considered a minor mistake, but that the jump was still counted albeit with less credit, similar to a hand down. Lu was probably given credit for all but the final triple toe (and triple flip), with maybe a few judges considering one of the lutzes as being lower quality. The toe, sal and loop were all fine under 6.0 - and I think the lutzes were, as well.
     
  12. sk8ingcoach

    sk8ingcoach Active Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    460
    My marks would have produced the same results

    Lipinski: 5.9/5.9
    Kwan: 5.8/5.9
    Chen: 5.6/5.8
    Butyr: 5.7/5.7
    Slutsk: 5.8/5.6
     
  13. judgejudy27

    judgejudy27 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    13,505
    I am surprised Slutskaya has more votes than Chen. Even if some think Chen was gifted, Slutskaya should have been about 8th in the short program so how can she even be a valid consideration of people, even if some think her long was worthy of 3rd place. Maybe alot forget her short program performance in Nagano:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJKs2kaJlyc

    How on earth was she over people like Bonaly, Malinina, Liashenko, and even in contention for a medal:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qapvKT19J7U
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcnhYjmc-Cw
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFrzG9p_Xs0

    Chen`s short was kind of weak too but was still clean, and probably did do barely enough to keep her in contention for the bronze atleast. Although Bonaly and Malinina could easily be argued to have been over her in the short as well, especialy Bonaly. Malinina realistically probably didnt have the name to be placed above.
     
  14. kuzytalent

    kuzytalent Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2013
    Messages:
    489
    Who are the people voting as other voting for. Were there are any other skaters who skated well enough for a medal in Nagano. I didnt see all the women. How did Gusermoli and ones like her skate. I didnt see her short or long but she was the reigning World medal winner but unable to come close to those medal again at the Games.
     
  15. David21

    David21 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,030

    This thread is not about how the 1998 competition was handled by the judges and why but how one personally would have judged under the system in place (6.0), and I have already mentioned those rules in the SP that were actually quite harsh towards underrotation.

    If you seriously think that e.g. a lutz that was 1/3 turn short of rotation should get seen as a credited jump only of lesser quality (similar to a jump with a hand-down) then our discussion ends here because aparently we have a totally POV of what figure skating is about (IMO, every jump that was 1/8 or less underroated was fine but maybe of lesser quality than a fully rotated jump while 1/4 was already a serious mistake and more than that already close to getting no credit at all. Why do you think CoP considers triple jumps with 1/3 underrotation count as overrated doubles which get hardly any points? Because they suddenly decided that underrotations should be considered harshly? No, they always should have punished hardly but the rules were not enforced under 6.0 for reasons I have already mentioned several times).
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2013
  16. kuzytalent

    kuzytalent Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2013
    Messages:
    489
    Well the judges gave Chen the scores and the bronze so they must have felt she had more clean triples and less serious mistakes under 98 thinking than Maria, and that even if Irina had better jumping than both her artistry and short program were too bad for a medal. Judges are huge experts on skating and probably know more than all of us.
     
  17. VIETgrlTerifa

    VIETgrlTerifa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    10,129
    Because Sarah Hughes won the gold medal and people were bitter about it, so the powers that be through IJS (at least from 2008-2010) tried to retroactively delegitimize her win for the benefit of another skater. Of course that lead to huge problems, so they scaled it back a bit after Vancouver. :p

    Anyway, the judges in Nagano were well-versed in the rules and probably know more about what was supposed to be rewarded and what wasn't in the LP as opposed to the SP than any poster here. And with that, the judges rewarded Chen the bronze medal with mid-5s all-across her technical merit mark (compare that to her SP tech marks which were lower). I'm sure all nine judges didn't just choose to ignore it or didn't see it. They probably made a good faith effort to judge Chen's performance according to the rules at the time (with some natural bias playing here and there).
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2013
  18. Susan M

    Susan M Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,502
    Actually it is debatable, because there were times at least some of the judges seemed willing to overlook the slight toe-scrape two foot. You are right the rulebook said they should only give credit for jumps landed on one foot, but once the ISU introduced the distinction between a two-footed landing and the slight two-foot for SP deductions, it kind of carried over into FS judging.

    I think before the advent of instant replay for the tech specialists, it was too difficult to judges to be sure about quarter turn or less URs, especially if the jump was at the far end of the ice, especially if the skater had decent flow out of the jump. They surely would not have given credit for an obvious UR (which would start a lot less than 180, more like 90 degrees). When it comes to blades, the judges don't have as good a view as we usually get from the TV camera. So, they tended to give the skater the benefit of the doubt.

    I'm not sure you are right about a hand down. That makes it a jump not landed on 1 foot and I think it did cost the skater credit for the jump under 6.0. I remember Scott Hamilton making a big deal about one of Petrenko's jumps in Albertville (the SP 3Lz, maybe?) when he leaned way forward but did not put his hand down, like that made a huge difference.
     
  19. David21

    David21 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,030

    Useing that argument, we should stop any discussion about the judging because the judges are so much more trained and knowledgable than any poster here blah blah..personally, I'm not even believing that and this rather strange argument is not going to prevent me from discussing the judges marks.



    Then please give me a logical explaination why Chen's marks in the LP were so much better than in the SP even though she underrotated almost all triple jumps. Her marks in the LP were indeed quite consistant all with 5.5s and one 5.6 and one 5.7, and those are IMO about the marks she would have gotten for all different clean triple jumps except for the flip and no triple-triple combination. What really happened IMO was that the judges indeed noticed the badly ur'ed last triple toe (that was hard to miss) but they completely missed the ur'ed lutzes, loop and sal because otherwise those marks make no sense.
     
  20. VIETgrlTerifa

    VIETgrlTerifa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    10,129
    Because you're making a procedural argument about what was credited and valued under the judging system in place in Nagano as if you're an authority on the issue. This is separate from a more substantive argument about whether Lu Chen should have received credit for her jumps from a personal standpoint or from an "ideal" standpoint. It'd be one thing if the judges were all over the place but the tech. marks were incredibly consistent.

    I argue all the time that the judges are wrong, but I can't say that they were wrong with the rules in place, only that the system on which they we're working with allowed them give such marks. (I.e. Klimova/Ponomarenko's under markings from 1986-1988 and the Duschenays over marking afterward).

    As to the point differential from the SP and LP... I guess subjective things like skate order and presentation played a role, but also the fact that SPs tended to be more harshly judged from a technical element analysis standpoint because that was the idea behind the SP. The LP shifted more weight to other things and Chen had more elements that she more or less completed in comparison to her competitors by the time she had skated and the judges took that into account as well.
     
  21. judgejudy27

    judgejudy27 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    13,505
    Chen's technical marks were very consistent. All 5.5 to 5.7 with mostly 5.5 and 5.6. It was Maria's who were all over the place, mostly 5.5s as well, but as low as a couple of 5.4s IIRC, and as high as a 5.8 from one judge who gave her a higher technical mark than clean 7 triple Michelle (although the judge had Kwan ahead overall 5.7, 5.9 to 5.8, 5.8). Obviously the two foot landings made Maria's technical harder to judge under 6.0 thinking than Chen's barely UR jumps. Two foot landings under 6.0 were a worse mistake period. Chen's 2nd mark was also very consistent, mostly all 5.8s with a couple 5.7s. Butyrskaya's 2nd mark was also all over the place, from several 5.5s to several 5.8s, which again isnt surprising given the well choreographed program but skated very tenatively and uneasily. Slutskaya's marks were also much more consistent, almost all 5.7s and 5.6s on both sets.
     
  22. mustafinabars

    mustafinabars Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2012
    Messages:
    98
    Definitely Maria. I would score Butyrskaya 5.7 technical, 5.8 presentation. Chen 5.4 technical, 5.7 presentation. Slutskaya 5.8 technical, 5.6 presentation. I would credit Chen for 5 clean triples and 2 other decent attempts at triples and 2 clean triple lutzes. The quality of her jumps and spins are so poorer compared to others in the top 6 though she would still get a lower technical merit score. Her artistry was very good but nothing amazing by then, overrated as well by her reputation from years past.
     
  23. mustafinabars

    mustafinabars Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2012
    Messages:
    98
    Of course it wasnt in the U.S. Nobody in the U.S cared who won the bronze once Bobek and the overhyped never going to happen U.S sweep was off the cards.
     
  24. David21

    David21 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,030

    I'm only posting my opinion about the judging based on what I read in the rule book. I'm not claiming to be more of an authority than other human being.



    The judges missed underrotations in the past before lots of times...see Sarah Hughes or Kwan's flip in SLC...the fact that the different judges gave similar marks to Chen's LP in Nagano tells us absolutely nothing so this is not an argument.
     
  25. mustafinabars

    mustafinabars Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2012
    Messages:
    98
    The bronze to Chen I always felt was a make up gift for other times they robbed her in her career, especialy the 96 Worlds. The big loser though was Maria who was robbed of a bronze medal for the 3rd straight major event of her career- 96 Worlds, 97 Worlds, and 98 Olympics. She was robbed so often one could say she was a bank. Even with the robbing though she would have won the bronze at each of those 3 events with just one less mistake, so the was screwed by the judges and by herself 3 times in a row. Such an unlucky skater.
     
  26. VIETgrlTerifa

    VIETgrlTerifa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    10,129
    You're the one who made the first initial statement about no scoring system existing that valued URs over two-foots when it may not have been the case. Also, a consensus shows us that no matter where they ultimately ranked Chen, the judges all agreed where her tech marks belonged. If the scoring system truly deducted for URs the way you said they did, then you'd see much more disparity between the judges because I can't believe all 9 judges ignored or didn't see her URs.
     
  27. David21

    David21 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,030

    In this thread I already quoted the rule book for the deductions for underrotation in the SP so I think this should be proof enough. Of course if you want to negate what is written in the rule book then you are free to do so.
     
  28. JJS5056

    JJS5056 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    167
    A hand down definitely did not negate a jump 6.0 in the long program; hand down, three turn(s) on landing and a touch-down of the free foot (after landing the jump...more of a loss of balance) were all considered minor flaws (~.1 in the SP) and skaters still received credit for completing the jump.

    You are right in that 1/2 turn was probably an exaggeration. My point still stands that in the free program, only severe underrotations would ever be questioned in terms of credit. (The following is directed more toward David21) The rules for the short program are irrelevant; there was a deduction in the short for a flutz, as well, but that doesn't mean that flutzes were not considered completed triple jumps in the free. The two prorams were judged completely different- the SP was deduction-based, while in the free/long, elements were additive; in the SP, a two-footed jump was treated differently from a fall (~.2 vs. ~.4), while they were treated the same in the long (with neither counting toward the technical mark).
     
  29. David21

    David21 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,030

    Skaters did receive PARTIAL credit for a jump with a hand-down or 3-turn in the LP, yes.



    If underrotation in SP is worthy of a heavy deduction, then it would belogical to assume that underrotated jumps in the LP would also at least get only partial credit as well. Of course it always depends on the extent of the underrotation. This is no different from e.g. a flutz. Of course different judges interpret rules differently so they might not deduct as harshly as I would do for flutzing or underrotation. But in some way, flutzing and underrotation are similar because in both cases some mistakes from the skaters would not be noticed by the judges because otherwise some marks (especially in the SPs) could not be explained.

    But why not stick to the competition discussed here: My initial point in this thread was that it is ridiculous to assume that Maria's lutz and flip were "badly two-footed" (when in fact they might not even had a touch down of the free leg) while Chen supposedly landed 5 clean triple jumps (when in fact all of them except 1 were underrotated and some of them by more than 1/4). I'm sorry but a lutz that is lacking more than 1/4 rotation is not a clean jump and should not get full credit in the LP.
    And a 2.75 triple salchow should not get that, either.
     
  30. butyrskafanatic

    butyrskafanatic Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    Messages:
    187
    If judges took URs that seriously then Hughes whose 2002 Olympic LP jumps were much worse and more badly underrotated than Chen's in 98 (apart from one) wouldnt have even medaled in SLC, let alone won. I still dont think Chen deserved the bronze in Nagano over Butyrskaya or even Slutskaya since the quality of her jumps, spins, and overall technical skating were inferior to others at the very top by then even when she made less mistakes and landed more, and I think even her artistry was exagerrated by that point, but I do think the judges were correct in crediting her for 5 clean triples.

    Some of you are forgetting it wasnt COP in 1998. As for strict rules who cares, most judges didnt follow 95% of the written code ever anyway. There were generally accepted rules and that was it. A jumps underrotated by a tenth or even quarter of a rotation being discredited was never one of those.