Chen Lu's SP marks in 98 Olympics

Discussion in 'The Trash Can' started by Kwantumleap, Aug 9, 2010.

  1. Kwantumleap

    Kwantumleap New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,941
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFt3bDPar60

    I don't understand her marks. Can someone help me understand why it seems all the judges took deductions from her first mark. Her technical marks ranged from 4.9-5.6
  2. orientalplane

    orientalplane Mad for mangelwurzels

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    Messages:
    10,666
    I love Chen, but I'd guess that judges deducted for a number of reasons: the triple lutz being under-rotated (or very close - probably some judges gave it and others not), substandard spins, spirals not held, triple toe instead of triple flip or loop as the solo jump, and possibly other things that I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on.

    Under 6.0, I don't think there weren't any specific deductions or loss of points for these things, which perhaps explains the wide range of technical marks.
    Cheylana and (deleted member) like this.
  3. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,511
    The lutz was definitely cheated, by enough that it would get the < call in today's system. See the replay at the end of that youtube clip.

    Other possible small deductions: traveling at the beginning of the flying spin and (more significantly) on the second foot of the combo spin; not quite 8 revolutions in position on the layback spin.

    Some of the low marks may be not so much because of deductions but because that judge's base mark for the program was not very high to begin with, for whatever reason. Remember the scores were placeholders for rankings, and the judges who marked Chen lowest may have wanted to place her behind earlier skater(s) whom they had given marks only slightly higher.
    Cheylana and (deleted member) like this.
  4. Triple Butz

    Triple Butz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    2,781
    4.9 was pretty redonculous in my opinion, but with the cheated lutz and the weak spins, I think most of the other marks were right on.

    Although I usually love her style, I also don't think LuLu really captured the feel of this tango...a little too loose, not enough tension.
  5. judgejudy27

    judgejudy27 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    13,349
    5.6 was much too high, probably even more ridiculous than the 4.9. I would have scored her about 5.3 at most for elements probably. Her spins were weak, her double axel was weak, and her jumps were stalked especialy the double axel, plus a triple toe as the solo jump, and even the footwork and spiral sequence were nothing special. I dont see why she would get a big technical mark, she certainly did nothing to earn it other than staying on her feet and skating fairly clean. And presentation 5.6 around maybe. It was an ok program and performance but nothing special. She certainly didnt deserve any higher than 4th in the short program. Michelle, Tara, and Maria were stronger than her on both marks. She was lucky there were so many mistakes or she probably would have been out of the final flight.

    I usually like Chen alot and her comeback was nice to see, but she was technically well past her prime by that point and it is actually quite surprising she managed to medal in Nagano.
  6. judgejudy27

    judgejudy27 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    13,349
    She was placed 2nd behind Maria at that point, and ahead of Bonaly but there were probably alot of skaters left the judges were planning to place higher. Kwan, Lipinski, Slutskaya, Bobek, Gusmeroli, Hubert perhaps if she skated well, even Sokolova possibly. So that is probably also what they had in mind, they needed to save alot of marks as they were not expecting her to place that highly. As it turned out only Kwan and Lipinski of those I mentione delivered.
  7. olympic

    olympic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    6,967
    Slutskaya doubled the 3z of her 3z-2t combo, but still had marks ranging from 4.8 - 5.3 for tech with a mandatory deduction. Lulu had 4.9 - 5.6 with no mandatory deduction, and Slute was only 1 place behind. It would've been a lot less of a fairy tale ending for Lulu if so many others had gone clean - Slutskaya, Gusmeroli, Bobek, Szewczenko able to compete, etc.
  8. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,511
    I'm specifically thinking of the Australian and Hungarian judges, the ones who gave 5.3 for presentation and lower for required elements.
    http://winter-olympic-memories.com/html/results/jp_3d/18_nagano/18_figure/18_figure_w_ex.htm
    I think their marks for Chen, and also for Bonaly in the case of the Australian judge, were low because they wanted to place her behind Elena Liashenko, who had already skated (with triple lutz combination and triple flip but a step out from one of them, IIRC) and whom they'd already both given 5.1/5.4. I could only speculate whether that might be because of was the planned jump content, a belief that cheated landings (Chen's lutz, Bonaly's second triple toe) were a worse error than a step out, the quality of the basic stroking, or some other reason entirely.

    They were in the minority, so that didn't affect the eventual placements of those three skaters, but it did affect the actual scores shown in the K&C (and Chen's 7th-place ordinals for anyone who bothered to check the protocol at the end of the evening).
  9. Lainerb

    Lainerb New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2003
    Messages:
    2,737
    Cheated lutz was -.1-.3 depending on how extreme, traveling on the combo spin probably was -.1-.2, there were also breaks between the steps and 3toe which probably resulted in -.1 in deductions from some judges. On the extreme end a judge could have deducted -.6 of a point or -.3 of a point if more lenient.

    Considering an absolutely clean program from Chen probably would have had a base mark of just 5.5-5.7 maybe then some of those marks don't seem that far off if all the deductions were taken into account.
  10. barbk

    barbk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Messages:
    5,954
    I don't think that judges likely deducted very much for the cheating on the lutz -- that didn't become a significant issue until we got nearer COP. Traveling on the combo spin was judged more harshly under 6.0 than it seems to be under COP. I suspect that it was a lot more to do with base mark and her skate order.

    She wasn't jobbed, that's for sure.
  11. Lainerb

    Lainerb New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2003
    Messages:
    2,737
    Though it is interesting that Chen went from a skater who received 5.7-5.9 on the presentation mark at her peak and then down to 5.3-5.7 in Nagano. Her maturity and grace were only matched by perhaps Kwan, Bobek and Butryskaya, but I suppose she seemed much slower by then when compared to her earlier years. While I understand that these were place holders under 6.0, the AUS and HUN judges gave her the same presentation score as Sokolova.

    Chen's chronic issues with cheated jumps(though the delay was beautiful) may not have as much of an impact on her scores if one takes into account that starting this season even downgraded jumps with get %70 percent credit. I wonder how the 1998 Olympics would have turned out under COP.

    ETA: The CBS broadcast has a close up of her 3z+2t and Scott calls it as a 1/4 under-rotated. I thought 1/4 was the cut-off before it was downgraded or is any jump cheated by 1/4 or more downgraded?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxER4UaFxNA&feature=related
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2010
  12. ltnskater

    ltnskater Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    602
    Believe me, had she done much better than the 25th (and not qualifying for the free) at worlds the year before, she wouldn't have gotten marks as low as she did. Also, cause of the skate order that others have mentioned, there were still many skaters yet to come and the judges were probably saving marks. At the end of the day, she did finish 4th or 5th (correct me if I'm wrong), and I didn't really see her any higher than that from the view of the judges back then.

    Also agree with, the underrotation on the lutz probably wouldn't have garnered too much attention at that point in time, yes she did the triple toe instead of the flip, but so did michelle kwan (who got mostly 5.7s and 8s with a slight COE on the lutz), so the toe probably didn't have too much to do with it. The only real reason I see for a deduction back in that day would be the travelling in the combo spin. (Let's be honest, footwork and spiral sequences back then with few exceptions are today's prenovice level at best).

    I do say she's lucky that so many others did not skate as well as they could have, or she really could have been buried in the standings after the short, but still ecstatic that she ended up with the bronze as someone mentioned before, it's surprising that she pulled that off as she was past her prime by then (1996 worlds was like the best =D)
  13. VIETgrlTerifa

    VIETgrlTerifa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    9,973
    It's funny because the judge that gave her that 4.9 in tech. and thus placed her in 7th in the SP placed her in 3rd in the LP.
  14. Kwantumleap

    Kwantumleap New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,941
    Chen Lu recieved almost all 5.8s (only one 5.7) for presentation in the FS at those Olympics. Of course she was more emotional and expressive in her FS and marks are based on many factors. It's just odd to see her presentation marks dip so greatly and so inconsistently for the short then rise consistently for the free with similar quality skating.
  15. casken

    casken Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Messages:
    6,322
    I think we did this event for the "FSU judging game" and I gave her something like a 5.1 for tech (Judgejudy covered all the reasons) and had her a few spots lower than she actually placed, so I don't think she was judged harshly.
  16. judgejudy27

    judgejudy27 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    13,349
    I think her long program was much better quality skating than her short overall. And the program certainly had much more impact than her short which was just kind of nice and there.
  17. ltnskater

    ltnskater Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    602
    I actually think this was the result of her "coming back" in the short, and at least she skated clean, still had the triple lutz and toe, and as no one else other than the 3 ahead of her (contenders anyway) skated well (judges had said bye bye Surya by then :(), she was in good enough position for a medal in the long.

    Of course, with her exquisite long program, the judges saw the short as confirmation that she was back as they were unsure of what she could deliver in the short, and then judged her as one of the "contenders" in the long, eventually leading to a bronze medal.
  18. olympic

    olympic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    6,967
    that is a good analogy....
  19. bardtoob

    bardtoob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,890
    - 3Lz in combination was underrotated.
    - 3T had a long break between the jump and preceding steps
    - Only one spiral position was held for longer than 1 second connected by 2 footed skating
    - Layback spin leg position could be better.
    - Combination spin could be better.

    I would have gaven her a 5.9 start value, and given her 5.2 for technical merit, -.2 for each jump element, and -.1 for each non-jump element for a total of -.7 in deductions.

    I am willing to bet that the judge that chose 4.9 gave -.2 as the deduction for each element beginning from a 5.9 start value. The most generous judge was from the USA, and probably ignored the combination spin problems and gave -.1 for all other deductions starting from a 6.0 start value.

    --------------------

    ETA: WOW. Even I, as a Maria fan, am a little suprised a how well she skated.
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2010
  20. smarts1

    smarts1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,019
    ... Do you know anything about the 6.0 judging system??? You don't deduct anything because you think a spin has an ugly position (like what you mentioned with the layback)... At this point in time, you also don't deduct anything for a spiral that was only held for 1 second...

    As for everyone saying that she underrotated the lutz, I doubt any majority of the judges even recognized it. At this point in time, there was no such thing as slow motion replay, and no one really cared about underrotation until later.

    The only deduction that I saw was the travel on the combo spin and the break in the steps of the footwork before the toe.

    If you really want to be nitpicky, the straight line step was a little short of complete (since she started a bit late), the cheated lutz, and the spiral sequence was a bit shallow.

    But either way, I would definitely say that she didn't get the marks that she deserved (like the 4.9) because she had fallen out of the judges' favor by that point in time. She hadn't skated cleanly that whole season and was out with injury in 96. And then, she bombed 96 Worlds...
  21. bardtoob

    bardtoob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,890
    :huh: I know plenty as did the judges, but it was not as if they followed what they knew either :D

    I was just giving fair marks given the nature of the competition ;)

    . . . and, yes, 80% of what I said was perfectly justifiable, hence, the marks that stuck ranged from 5.1-5.4 :rolleyes:

    OMFG, you are going to complain about my judging of what happened on the ice, then talk about this politikal gossipy BS. That's pretty stupid.
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2010
  22. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,511
    Judges cared. Some more than others. But in general, they cared a lot more than commentators or fans.

    Skaters who could land cleanly rotated jumps often cared because they didn't like to see competitors get rewarded for "cheating" the landings.

    http://ww2.isu.org/news/980.html

    There was a specified deduction for "Rotation not complete."

    There was not a specified deduction for traveling in a spin. Which isn't to say judges might not have taken one if the traveling was significant enough. After all, Communication 980 just says that these are examples of deductions, not that it's an exhaustive list.
  23. Squibble

    Squibble New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,520
    1998 Winter Olympics Ladies' Short Program Scores by Judge

    In the larger scheme of things, it didn't really matter that Judge #4, for example, gave Chen a 5.2 instead of a 5.5 or even a 5.6.

    As we all know, what really mattered under 6.0 was placement, not scores. Most of the judges ranked Chen fourth in the SP. Most of them also ranked Butyrskaya higher on Presentation as well as Required Elements. Therefore, in order for the technical marks to have enabled Chen to finish higher than Butyrskaya in the Short Program, the judges would have had to given her technical marks at least equal to Kwan and/or Lipiniski.
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2010
  24. Lainerb

    Lainerb New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2003
    Messages:
    2,737
    :soapbox: I want a FSU COP Judging Game for this competition, now!
  25. judgejudy27

    judgejudy27 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    13,349
    While I agree with most of what you said I think there is no way Chen of 1998 was starting with a 5.9 start value. If even Kwan wasnt starting from a 5.9 start value technical mark in either program, there is no way Chen at that point in time was.
  26. iarispiralllyof

    iarispiralllyof Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2010
    Messages:
    774
    I thought there was. didn't it play a role in scrutinizing quad landings during the 90's. I think I remember michael weiss being credited for landing a clean quad at some nationals and then having it taken back because it turned out he two footed it

    u mean 97
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2010
  27. bardtoob

    bardtoob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,890
    Chen had the planned content for 5.9-6.0 SV, but everybody knew the execution was not going to happen.
  28. Coco

    Coco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2002
    Messages:
    10,588
    I'm fascinated by how judges would come up with SV under 6.0. I don't recall commentators ever explaining that, just referring to it.

    Would Lipinski, with her 3z-2l and 3flip, have the highest SV? Did spins ever come into the picture?
  29. Lainerb

    Lainerb New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2003
    Messages:
    2,737
    How did Chen have such a high base value? I don't even think you can really talk about 6.0 in the context of starting or base values in the same sense you can in regards to COP. Even you could a starting 6.0 base value for ladies during 1998 would have had to been a 3+3 of high difficulty(3z+3t) or 3axel+2 for the combo, 3flip and double axel.

    Chen as far as jump content had about the bare minimum to be competitive, her footwork wasn't as difficult as some of the other ladies, and her spins while meeting the requirements of the day did not stand out.
  30. Lainerb

    Lainerb New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2003
    Messages:
    2,737
    Midori received 6.0s for the required element mark at certain points in her career, so she could be used as an example of what one would have to do during the SP to receive a 6.0. Other than Midori, however who else received a 6.0 for required elements during the late eighties to late ninties?

    Perhaps Lipinski did have the highest starting value, but her required elements score was still less than Kwan's. The judges if they deducted for her flutz like they should have may have placed Lipinski at a starting value of 6.0 consider some judges still gave her 5.8s on the first score.
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2010
  31. bardtoob

    bardtoob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,890
    For the technical marks, nobody ever.
  32. Kwantumleap

    Kwantumleap New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,941
    Tonya did.
  33. MikiAndoFan#1

    MikiAndoFan#1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    14,081
  34. Squibble

    Squibble New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,520
    Barely.

    Lucinda Ruh 1999 Worlds SP

    Detailed classification

    I think Ruh's jumps were 3T-2T, 3L (ur), 2A, and her spins were :swoon:.

    Her technical marks were 4.9 4.6 4.7 4.8 5.0 4.7 5.1 4.6 4.8, which doesn't really reflect the difficulty of the spins.

    By way of contrast, Diana Poth did 3T-3T, 2A, 3S and had spins that were good but not in a league with Ruh's. Poth received technical marks of 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.0 4.9, and finished eighth in the SP.

    A triple-triple and a fully rotated triple jump out of steps counted for a lot more than spins that were beyond the technical ability of any other skater in the competition.

    OTOH, if a skater omitted or fell on a required spin, the "starting value" did come into play.
  35. smarts1

    smarts1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,019
    Lol yeah I meant 97..... But anyway I thought there was no slomo used by the judges at the time... I thought only the commentators had slomo... I remember listening to a TV broadcast of the 2002 Olympics and they said that 2002 had been the first time the judges ever got slomo which they said was why the scores were all over the place and why the judges were so nitpicky.
  36. bardtoob

    bardtoob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,890
    In an SP?

    Which one?
  37. Kwantumleap

    Kwantumleap New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,941
    Lainerb didn't specify the SP in their post.
  38. scootie12

    scootie12 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    98
  39. bardtoob

    bardtoob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,890
    The question I was answering when I said nobody was regarding the SP.
  40. Triple Butz

    Triple Butz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    2,781