Discussion in 'The Trash Can' started by Maofan7, Apr 4, 2013.
In this article, Jackie Wong argues:-
Is Jackie right or wrong?
She is right. Too bad so many others haven't bothered to
1) understand the rules of COP
2) hide their hate of Chan
3) understand that it's the judges, not Chan, who give out the marks.
I wouldn't say Chan's victories have been "more than fair" based on IJS rules, but if one takes the time to learn the system then yes, they are understandable.
Perhaps there are some Chan-haterz who are simply using the Worlds decision to bash him even more. I'm upset by the Worlds decision, but I'm no Chan hater: I think he's fan-freakin-tastic. I have nothing against Chan, he's just skating. I do believe he gets a bit of world-champion bonus, but he's not the first and probably won't be the last to receive such treatment.
But I am with those who are not just fine and dandy with the current state of IJS and the way it's scored.
Is this an April fools joke question.
I Agree! Reading some of the comments made by people on here, it seems like a lot of people are stuck in the past and have not bothered to keep up to date with the rules.
Trying to hang on to the so called "glory days" of the 6.0
I don't like Patrick either but he deserves every component he receives.
Then you'd know how obsolete these people's minds are. I believe they do study the new rules - well, some of them do. However, their mind cannot jump out of the old schools. How can you make someone happy with the new things if their mind stuck in the past?
Patrick makes mistakes often. And Patrick wins most of the time. That's where "Chanflation" came from. It was from the people whose favorites lost. Has he really been having the so called "Chanflation"? About 95% of the time, I could say NO! If people insist that there was "Chanflation" going on in most major competitions Chan attended, they should at least admit that there were "Tenflation", "Takahashiflation", "Hanyuflation", "Plushyflation", "Joubertflation", and so on... But no, they chose not to acknowledge those at least equally, sometimes more, questionable marks. Nor would they admit that there were much more truly unexplainable inflations in the old 6.0 system.
Well, it exists but it doesn't exist on purpose to prop up Patrick Chan.
With IJS Skaters whose basics are of a tremendously high quality will win with mistakes over those whose basics are of a lower quality.
In a ridiculously obvious example - put the skater with the worst basics who completes all the elements against the skater with the best basics and mistakes and you can see why they would win. It becomes more complicated when their basics are closer in level.
However, it is not just something about the system that benefits Chan and as time goes on - if there are not changes to the judging - we will see more examples of skaters that are just that good. For instance - we have seen all year that V and T with mistakes will beat other really good teams with no mistakes. There have been similar complaints about Carolina Kostner.
Having just seen them all skate at Worlds - I fully appreciate Kostner's and V and T's and Chan's superior skating. But my main point is - the system rewards fantastic basics -and fantastic basics allow for higher levels and better GOE.
This is not Chanflation - it is the system that rewards the amazing skills of Chan - and V and T and Kostner .
Agreed. So then the question is: Is this really a problem?
Point values and judges' use of program components can be adjusted so that blatant mistakes will be more costly and so that superficially clean programs will be more highly rewarded just for cleanness in addition to whatever other positive qualities they gain points for.
If more changes are made in those directions, it will become less common for better skaters to win even with several mistakes.
But even so, there would still be some occasions when all the best skaters make mistakes and the next-best skater with a clean program is not quite in the top ranks on PCS or attempted base value or quality of successful elements. And so the cleanest program would not win. And observers who believe mistakes should spell defeat will still be dissatisfied.
At the big high-profile events like Worlds, Olympics, GP Final, there will probably be enough good skaters that writing in massive penalties for these mistakes and significant bonuses for superficial cleanness would almost always result in a cleaner skate winning. But at a smaller competition like a regular Grand Prix event, senior B event, or national championship, where there may be only one world-medal-level skater entered, it would still be possible that that skater could be enough ahead of the rest of the field on everything thing else to overcome the stiff penalties.
The only ways to guarantee that performances with certain types or numbers of mistakes will never win would be to disqualify the skater as soon as those mistakes have been verified.
I would be in favor of some effort to minimize the occurrences of good clean programs losing to great-but-visibly-flawed programs, through the means mentioned in my second paragraph. But ultimately I think the sport will continue to value underlying quality over simple lack of visible errors, so it's also important to help viewers appreciate those qualities, the better to understand the results.
YES, without a doubt.
If a similar result occurs at the 2014 Olympic games I predict a huge uproar putting the 2002 Pairs event/result to shame. Figure skating will have zero credibility as a sport.
Is the world a sphere?
Jackie Wong is a terrible writer. Maofan, I'm glad you were able to figure out what the article was about, because I didn't have the patience to plow through it to the end.
Chanflation originally referred to the fact that the judges at 2010 Canadian Nationals really outdid themselves with nationally inflated scores. National champion inflation occurs in many countries.
Is the moon made of cheese?
Chan is underscored in both GOE and PCS. Gettting the scores he deserves he would have an even bigger mistake on the field than he has now. He was robbed of winning the Grand Prix final this year too.
If the judges keep following the rules and no case of corruption is reported like in 2002, why would there be any scandal? Well, I hope there won't be any because a new scandal in the men's event after Lysacek's win in 2010 wouldn't be good for the sport.
Enough that the ISU used the 2002 scandal as an excuse to change the scoring system so that the North-American skaters could win a few titles and medals.
Well, if we're going to paint it like that, then one can turn that around and say that you can't blame them for that since the older scoring system was obviously used to prop non-North American skaters for decades without having to defend their scores. The North American federations ended up changing the institution in their favor. That is of course, if you want to go with that argument.
Not scandal on the same level as in 2002.
But if the results don't match what fans and commentators who have their own opinions of what the rules should be or how the existing rules should be applied, there will be outrage. And if the commentators get outraged, the casual viewers and the mainstream press in that country will as well.
It doesn't have to be as extreme as changing the scoring system. We already have precedent of the ISU changing things around to appease the fans and viewers of the sport such as adding the short program, getting rid of compulsories (although smaller federations were also supporting this), etc.
So should the question be "should Denis Ten have won Worlds?"
I have not seen Denis live but i have Seen Patrick live and at his best as i watched him practice the week before worlds. There is just NOT an ice surface on earth big enough for him. He's amazing amazing. STILL, i do think that Denis Ten gave an incredible performance and was stellar. Under the 6.0 system, he would have won. .The 6.0 system however was more the spirit of the law. The Code of Points is the letter of the law which Patrick was judged by and rightfully won under
I think it is funny though - that some people act as though there have only been results people disagreed with in IJS and that the marking under 6.0 solves everything. Yes - I do agree that with the placements being the way they were after the short - that under 6.0 Denis Ten would have won - if only because the skater in the top 3 who won the free program automatically won the competition. And in this case - it would have made more people more satisfied.
However, would Ten - without a reputation for such programs have had a shot after the short in 6.0? Would he have been in the top 3?
In 6.0 skaters out of the top 3 were "not in control of their own destiny" and in a time when it is arguable reputation made it more difficult for someone of Ten's world standing would he have been given the ordinals to be top 3?
And anyone who tells themselves that figure skating results always made sense to the masses - or even the "experts" under 6.0 has a selective memory!
I think people have a hard time remembering a time where a skater with four major mistakes was still able to win the title over another skater who skated as well as he could have with high technical content (even if it's not the highest technical content) under 6.0. It has happened though. Under 6.0 with the SP and LP and factored placements, is there an argument that Chan deserved to be lower than second in the LP in order for Ten (who may not have been in the top three after the SP) to win?
Although this poll certainly isn't the most reliable measure we have, I do think it's telling. I think the fact that the term has gotten attention in the limited media that covers figure skating coupled with many skating fans have been using that term for the past few seasons indicate that rightly or wrongly, many perceive that Chan can rely on a huge PCS boost to carry him to victories when his LP skates have been less than stellar.
No, but tiny minds think it does
No that shouldnt be the question, as Chan has had many more controversial wins and medals than just the recent Worlds, and has had many far worse ones than this years Worlds to boot. People, including experts, journalists, and fellow skaters alike are just so fed up at this point they are now becoming alot more vocal.
I think so. It happened to Paul Wylie at Olympics, who had a worse international track record than Ten.
Viktor Petrenko's 1992 Worlds winning LP was quite flawed (just watched it the other day), but I don't remember how his competitors skated, even Browning. I was watching Petrenko since he's the last man I could think of who could win competitions a la Chan with flawed performances (mainly jump mistakes).
There have been quite a few skaters who could win with flawed programs. First 2 that come to mind are Kurt Browning and Stephane Lambiel - but they are just the first 2 - I know there were many more. Also - a turnout and or doubling a jump weren't necessarily considered mistakes under 6.0. So if you were to look back at winners under 6.0 without "mistakes" as people are now calling them -there would probably be a ton more if you counted those 2 things as mistakes.
My local commentators of figure skating usually agree with the official judges - about Chan too - and they way prefer the COP to the 6.0 system. Might be the explanation to why scores and results don't get me outraged so easily.