Discussion in 'The Trash Can' started by iarispiralllyof, Feb 27, 2014.
The article seems pretty politically slanted to me. The argument that Sotnikova won because of technical strengths and Kim of artistry is a huge oversimplification and one only more novice skating fans make.
Waste of time article. Nothing significant said.
It's by someone who tried really hard to get to sochi so its interesting! The technical merit of sotnikova was far beyond Yuna but she also mentions Yuna was far more artistic in her program. She says sotnikova win makes her have major reservations about IJS! But the technical merit is on sotnikovas side. She is pro Yuna but isn't into saying every jump of adelina was actually flawed but not called flawed! She knows as a competitor a judge can think a jump is ur or wrong edge and take goe off.
I reject that premise in the first place because it is leading people to accept Adelina's win as legitimate. Present the case that "One skater had better jumps, one skater had better artistry," and of course people will accept the "jumper" because skating is a sport. In actuality, Yuna (three 3Lzs) was as athletic as Adelina. People are just oversimplifying that if you don't win on jumps then you must be an "artist." That mindset belittles what Yuna actually is and Adelina is not: An athlete AND and artist.
But Sotnikova WAS more athletic than Kim with the 7 triples, including the 3loop that Kim lacks. Sotnikova also demonstrated more difficult spin positions and footwork, which have a significant athletic component, the former flexibility and the latter stamina. Kim's program was also pretty front loaded. So no, while it could be argued that Kim was more artistic, finished and polished, Sotnikova's athletic superiority is pretty clear.
For every fan and great skater that supports Yuna there are just as many fans and great skaters who think Adelina won.
If Yuna's friends like Christina and Michelle support her that is fine.
Yagudin and Tat supporting Adelina is fine.
I am happy that Carolina has an Olympic medal, I am happy that Yuna has two Olympic medals and I am happy for Adelina.
Let's not forget that Adelina did a 3toe-3toe in the short, had a visible error in the free, and otherwise has less quality in the elements.
Even people who think Adelina should have won can form better arguments than the technician-artist comparison simply because Adelina had 7 triples to Yu-na's 6.
The BV difference between the two is less than 2 points (SP+FS). "More technical contents" is a stretch.
Yuna's only hope was for Adelina to mess up her LP. Adelina had a points advantage on the layback and step levels besides having a more difficult jump layout and the best overall spins. Adelina absolutely showed more in the second half than either Yuna or Caro so she won the bonus and left the stronger image in the judges minds.
I don't see why this result is so surprising to skating fans.
Go back and see Tara won with more tech in'98. Sarah won with more tech. Shizuka won with more/cleaner tech.
In Sochi Adelina won with more tech.
It actually feels more like the trend than a "shocking upset."
I don't think we will ever see the more "artistic skater" win the OGM under the current system because the odds are stacked against them.
For a Harvard student, I expected better writing skills. It's not a bad piece, but it's not good either. I do love how Gao twice refers to Lipnitskaya as a "girl." I see what you're doing there, Christina.
Well she's a better skater than she is a writer.
Didn't Christina score a perfect 800 on her math boards?
That is scary smart to me
It is indeed rare to get a perfect score, but the SAT doesn't really cover any high level math.
Lets take spins, for example, did Yuna really have better quality spins? Objectively, if you consider the requirements for levels, it is clear that she did not. Subjectively, you can argue that you prefer Yuna's spin positions but I can argue right back, in detail why they are not good aesthetic quality. I don't particularly like Adelina's spins and don't find tem aesthetically pleasing either, but again, they are a lot more challenging, innovative and interesting than Yuna's. This is from someone who is decidedly not a fan of Adelina's skating.
And they do. But not having a 3loop really did matter for Yuna. You cannot discard this argument as unsubstantial. However, Christina's article is poorly argued and her arguments are unsupported--that's disappointing.
More on Women's Controversy
Figure Skating Reference: Evaluating Step Sequences
Ouch, I'm not a big fan of the skating.
What is she majoring in? Some people think you can have the science down without solid language skills, but I disagree.
I agree that it is very possible to fix results even with this JS, and that of course it would have become easier and easier the better it was mastered by panels.
Japan, I believe, is one of the worse examples one could bring up for this argument.
I've met countless med, pharm, and dental students with terrible grammar and spelling. Some of them are immigrants who may excel in math/science. Good language skills make you sound articulate but they don't necessarily determine someone's intelligence.
Anyway, I've re-read the article and while it's not Pulitzer-caliber, aren't you all being a bit hypercritical? It's a fluff skating piece, and it's not that bad.
Good articles which I had already read. But ISU and IOC say the results were fair.
There are posters here, some that are former judges who will tell you the IJS is infallible.
Adelina really skated great as did Yuna and Carolina.
First of all, I'd like to clarify that I only read the article after I wrote the sentence you quoted: I was commenting another post, not passing judgment on Gao's writing skills. Which I wouldn't have done anyway, because I'm in no position to.
I never said language skills determine someone's intelligence. To be honest, life is so complicated I have yet to understand what intelligence is.
Nor I said that many science people don't have good language skills, I know for a fact that the opposite is true.
But, I believe any kind of studying or reasearch builds on language.
Science, in order to be understood has to be layed out in best possible way.
It's crucial that problems are well worded and presented, for them to ever be solved: you're much more likely to see what comes next if the people that preceeded you made it clear what the essence of the matter was, what the corollaries were, wrote simply, sharply, efficiently.
Scientist Fermi, who was part of the Los Alamos team, was known for his abilities in presenting problems, that allowed him and anyone who worked with him to see solutions.
Computer science, that is changing our lives, is simply the challenge to translate human life complications into strings of zeros and ones. You can imagine how relevant language would be in that process.
Language is key, and Harvard is supposedly excellence.
I completely misinterpreted your post then I apologize
I agree with the rest of your post too, and I didn't mean to downplay the importance of language skills at all
After reading through the thread, I was expecting much worse. In terms of mechanics, she writes better than a lot of educated people I know. She can form a declarative sentence, her word choice is decent, and she has a pretty good grasp of grammar. As for the content, I give her a D for research. If she'd checked her facts, youtubed more performances, and looked at some protocols, it might have been a better article. It might also have changed her point of view.
Sorry to ask again, does anyone know what Gao is majoring in?
Like many other students she might not have declared a major yet and she took time off this year to focus on skating.
From an interview with Brennan last year:
"Her fall semester consisted of classes in economics, calculus, Chinese for Heritage Students (her parents are Chinese immigrants) and the biology seminar "What Is Life?"
How did she do? "My parents were happy," she says. "Almost all A's."
Isn't that pretty much true for all Harvard students?
Some of the comments on this thread are disappointing. Certain people seem to imply that Christina can't write well and/or maybe isn't that smart, despite being admitted to Harvard?? Not nice.
I personally enjoyed the article. It's listed as an opinion piece/editorial, not a research paper on figure skating scoring. On those terms, it's just as well written as many of the mainstream press articles I've read the last couple of weeks. If you disagree with Christina's viewpoint, that's okay, but why attack her writing style (which is perfectly fine)?
I give Christina credit for actually voicing an opinion about the state of the sport. How many other current skaters, except Ashley Wagner, have been brave enough to speak up about this? I'm glad Christina has the courage to put her views out there.
I'm not disputing her intelligence or writing ability per se, but I do think if you're going to publish something, you should check your facts first and avoid misstatements like: "... But she [Kim] took time off after winning the 2010 Olympics, and only returned to competition in 2013."
Separate names with a comma.