Discussion in 'The Trash Can' started by Maofan7, Apr 4, 2013.
Yes. If it were, Misha Ge would've received a medal!
I stated it before, there are some fans who want a surprise factor in a win. Within that surprise factor is enthusiastic audience reaction.
The first Worlds competition that I attended I was struck by the joy that most of the skaters had on their faces to just be there. Those skaters had to know that they were never in contention for the big prize/medals. They had (have) to know that they were not going to get the scores that they get at their Nationals/Federations championships. That nationals inflation factor - but they were overjoyed to be there. I made a comment to the person sitting next to me when scores of 3.9 or whatever showed up - how disheartening that had to be when they were accustom to the 5.2 or higher score (it was during the 6.0 scoring era). But whether or not they made it out of qualifying rounds they had a look of PURE JOY, just knowing that they were there.
In a perfect world, the skater who is awarded a medal would be one who had this joy, the audience support, the technical content, the judge's verification of the skating skills. About the closest I saw with that was Joanne's performance - and that was bittersweet because of her mother's death.
Does anyone know what Denis or Patrick really feel about their performances? Do we know what they personally thought about their placements - I mean really thought? Unless someone is totally self-absorbed, they probably know what they did better and worse than their competitors. Do we know what type of joy they hold in their soul about the performances? You can be the best in your field and hate what you do, conversely you can be the worst performer on the ice and love what you do.
I have no idea what Denis or Patrick feel, but I can tell you what certain posters will say just by seeing their names. From previous postings. From the poster's names. It would be nice, but I don't ever expect it to happen, that the same posters would concede that one or the other had a valid point.
But from my own personal experience - when you do, the other poster manically believes that they have finally made you see the light and you are now going to enthusiastically attack all those other deranged people who attack your skater.
Right you guys are! In any case, in keeping with my tennis-style breakdown, which frankly has nuttin' to do with IJS judges criteria, I think we can just put "enthusiastic audience response" under the Intangibles category.
And btw, Misha Ge would have been equal mainly in that Intangibles category to D10. But sure Misha is a performer and a charming young man, and he surely performed better than Patrick despite the fact lowtherlore would surely testify that Misha's Chan-like qualities are no match to the world champion's.
Actually the sport of gymnastics already changed the way vaulting is scored. Someone mentioned the Amanar being downgraded, but its not just that. They changed the way two vaults are scored together in event finals. Under the new system, Maroney wouldn't have even made the podium. The Americans complained when Cheng Fei medaled over Alicia under similar circumstances in Beijing.
In general though the sport of gymnastics agreed that they didn't care for the concept of someone winning with a major flaw. So when the results had that happen, they changed the rules so that execution in vault finals would matter more.....
The audience isn't the judges absolutely, but it doesn't mean the audience should be ignored either. People winning with multiple falls isn't good for the sport.
Maroney won silver (not gold) with only one fall, and over one probably the worst vaulting field in history (granted the mens field since 2009 in figure skating is also the worst in history), and her Amanar vault which she did successfully is the best womens vault in history. I was fine with the result. As for Sacramone vs Fei, Sacramone was .9 behind in start value, more than the .8 a fall was then, before the final even started. Sacramone was a dummy to not upgrade her gymnastics on vault and floor over the years leading to Beijing and it saw her passed by a bunch of people, including many of her own U.S teammates on floor. Had she upgraded even a bit before Beijing she could have easily won the vault gold given the mistakes by all the favorites that day, but instead she gets 4th place behind someone who fell who had mastered two 6.5 vaults while Sacramone was still doing vaults from the 90s.
The time of him stumbling out of a jump and the time he spent on his ass was what, less than 5 seconds total in a 4:30 program. That's less than 2% of the total time he was skating and interpreting to the music. Yes sometimes when a skater messes up they get caught off guard and couldn't perform the rest of the program well enough. I never got that from Chan's skate with the falls.
^^ That's the kind of dumbfounding defense that is frankly ... dumb-floundering.
Chan is a nice young man and a great skater professordeb. It's wonderful that you love him and defend him. But why not present a more logical argument against JJ? It was quite surprising that Chan was not the usual winner with mistakes early in the season. Perhaps that can be attributed to precocious Hanyu skating out of his mind, the rising brilliance of Javi Fernandez, and as well perhaps the residue of Nice boos still ringing in the judges’ ears. Apparently, the judges were just allowing Patrick an opportunity to regroup in early season. In any case, even while "losing" during the early season, Chan always made the podium. The judges' Chan favoritism over the past several years has been so bad that IMHO, it has hampered Patrick's growth as a skater and complicated his life as a young person trying to mature in the spotlight. It's made people unfairly dislike Patrick. Perhaps that's the biggest cruelty that ISU judges and IJS judging system have inflicted!!! But seriously, the OTT knee-jerk Chan fandom defensiveness as well as the constant insults toward Kathy Johnson DO NOT HELP the situation Patrick finds himself in.
You might as well not bring up Vancouver since Chan was nicely gifted with mistakes in his placement there. The cool thing about Patrick Chan which is nearly forgotten in all the hoopla over Chanflation is the fact that post-Vancouver, he took a long hard look at himself and his dreams, wised up to Plushy's portentous commandment, went home and aced quads. Then after hearing complaints about his lack of complete artistry, Patrick made the effort this season to focus on improving in that aspect. I think Patrick should be commended for this, and again I think it's a shame he's had to deal with the misfortune of being the judges' overwhelming favorite in the CoP-era, not to mention bearing the weight of overweening Chan fans, and Great Canadian Hope overhype.
I do believe Patrick's SS seem to overcome the fact that he is not a great artist on the level of Toller Cranston, John Curry, Robin Cousins, Jeremy Abbott, Paul Wylie, and Matt Savoie. But in addition to not yet reaching that level of great artistry, Patrick does not possess the jumping consistency and fierce, palpable macho presence and determination of Yagudin and Plushenko. Neither does Patrick have the natural creativity and smooth lyricism of Christopher Bowman, Johnny Weir, Stephane Lambiel, AND Denis Ten! Not even does Patrick yet rise to the level of artistic excellence and showmanship possessed by his countrymen: Kurt Browning, Brian Orser, Emanuel Sandhu, Shawn Sawyer, and Jeffrey Buttle. IMO neither does Patrick possess the authenticity and technical brilliance of Elvis Stojko, Brian Boitano, Todd Eldredge, and Scott Hamilton. What Patrick does have in spades is a good heart, loads of charisma off-ice, fairly consistent quads as a weapon, and those amazing wunderbar SS that are his bread and butter. To his credit, Patrick has worked on his artistry, but right now it's still a bit studied in my view, altho' his SS do compensate very effectively as usual in combination with his progress in the artistic realm, when he manages to stay on his feet.
Frankly, I'd like to see unexpected excitement happen in Sochi with some uncontroversial but clear and surprising wins, however unlikely that is to happen. No one really likes the impression given by the judges that Patrick can mail in his wins, merely by showing up and looking good in practice and maybe skating cleanly in one of two programs. The fact that Patrick has in recent years been pushed to the point of feeling and saying that he's not motivated is a clear indictment of his controversial wins. Plenty of times, Patrick did deserve to win with mistakes on the basis of some competitions as a whole. But on too many occasions, his winning margins were ridiculous, and too often he was favored over Dai when a case could be made for Dai winning.
This season it did seem as if the judges were bringing Patrick's scores back down to earth and within reason, to give at least the semblance of there being competition for gold in the men's division. However, it's hard to excuse what happened in Nice. And, I believe that what happened in Nice is absolutely a factor in how people view the London results. Also, it is undeniable that Denis Ten was the best overall skater in London with two superbly delivered performances.
Taking into account the general craziness of figure skating judging, I think the fact that Denis faltered slightly in doubling the 3-flip and clearly was becoming winded (which he overcame) can be seen as justification enough for the judges not to reward him the gold -- in the sense that underdogs must be perfect to win. However, the fact that Patrick fell twice on important jumps and faltered twice more with technical mistakes nullifies that notion -- it's simply too many errors to justify Chan winning even by that small margin, especially since the short program marks for both skaters should have been much closer than an eight-point spread. The efforts to justify Chan’s win are weak and useless, and simply further add to the pall cast by Nice.
This is an absurd argument and what I believe is a key weakness in CoP's slicing and dicing logic to PCS. A skater could fall on every single one of the 8 jumping passes and could still technically spend only about 10 seconds of a 4:30 LP with his ass on the ice. But what that "logic" fails to acknowledge is the fact that the overall effect of a program has been completely and utterly destroyed if a skater falls or majorly stumbles on every single jumping pass (or even multiple jumping passes), even if only about 3.7% of the total program time has been spent falling.
But "The skater radiates energy resulting in an invisible connection with the audience" is a IJS judging criterion under PE, whatever that means...
^^ Ha ha, interesting vodkashot! BTW, I believe PE stands for "performance execution." There's a CoP for Dummies trivia nugget worthy of a Jeopardy category.
Talking about yourself?
Oh why, thats so sweet of you aftershocks to think nicely of Chan. As for JJ, he is obsessed with beating Chan down so I dont think we can expect logical arguments from an obsessed fan or hater.
Yep, my bet was on Hanyu to win gold had he delivered.
There will be more 'inflation' to come not only from Chan but from other skaters. Hanyu-flation had happened. Next in line may be 'Brown-flation' if he gets his quads, 'Han-flation' if he raised his skating skills and choreography, 'Chen-flation' if he continues his upward trajectory ...... Oh dear, we shall be running all these 'flaton polls' every season!
Like I said, Chan fans, your arguments are weak, useless and dumb-floundering. Yeah, but naturally that won't stop you from continuing to flounder around and unfortunately like poor Chan trying to throw dirt onto other skaters in an ineffectual and ill-advised effort to downplay and diminish the seriously dismaying pall of Chanflation.
Of course Patrick Chan is too good a skater to be ironically confronted with the misfortune of having to battle back from winning ugly two Worlds in a row!
How much sway should an audience have, then? Or more accurately, how often should an audience (of varying knowledge) instantly understand the results. I think if we can agree on this, then you can create a system to allow for it. I'd be impressed if you got agreement, though.
I've heard this argument before, but I don't agree with it at all.
Firstly, I'd argue that Chan's falls did affect the rest of the program. The fall on the triple lutz affected the choreography going into the step sequence (compare his CoR performance with his Worlds performance) and made the beginning a little sloppy. After the second fall, he seemed completely out of the program. I actually thought he was unwell throughout the performance because he didn't have much conviction. I can think of Chan performances with a fall that didn't really take me out of the skate (CoR 2011 SP for example), but Worlds 2013 certainly wouldn't be one of them.
Secondly, while I like that COP is a "parts and whole" system, using the time spent from falling as a justification for not dropping scores seems ill-advised at best. I mean, it's not as if we expect the 270 (or 240) seconds to each contribute equally to the program. Why pretend that a major error that takes place in a minor time frame only affects things in a minor way?
I was responding to JJ and their post insisting that Chan always WINS. Winning = gold medal, not just being on the podium. In the many places that JJ posts about Chan, it is quite obvious that they have a hate-on for him. Regardless of how many times people have tried to explain why Patrick gets the scores he does -- including deductions -- JJ insists that Chan shouldn't win, doesn't deserve to win, doesn't deserve his marks. I have tried to understand their POV but when every post them make about Chan is nothing but negative and saying the same thing, it gets wearing. As a result, there are times I feel like I just have to say something.
As for Patrick and all those skaters you listed as belonging to a certain "category" of skater, I'm not sure I would have included some of those that you did in those categories. What I find interesting is that you say Patrick doesn't belong in any of those categories yet I don't see you listing any of those skaters in multiple categories. It seems like you think Patrick should be ALL of those things, which is a pretty big order. If I've misunderstood your intent, my apologies. I have yet to see anyone have all the goods to make it into each of those categories. However, I would say that Chan is part of a group that is attempting to do well in multiple areas. Will he be remembered as a master in one of those categories? I think somehow that he won't because of what COP expects of its skaters. Then again, he (and others) could surprise me. I don't think we'll know what he's become know for in your categories, but he is well known for his skating skills, the way he can get up to speed in such few stokes. I believe that he, like Ms. Kostner, know how to use their blades to generate speed and watching them just skating on the ice is a thing of beauty. For me, they are both masters of the blade.
It depends on which PCS mark you are referring to. I was pointing out that for Interpretation, I don't think falls or stumbles should substantially decrease a skater's IN mark unless the skater got the wind knocked out of him and starting to rely on muscle memory or started to wing-in (like Amodio's SP). A fall or glitches are a small part of the program and if anything should be reflected on P/E or SS.
As for aftershock... Thanks for your constantly lengthy defense against Chan Defenders. tl:dr.
No. I'm saying that if the system is causing results that are having the audience repeatedly up in flames than maybe things should be looked at. I think that B/S win with correct commentators could have been explained because it was defensible.
But I think for the audience seeing skaters win with all of those falls, and I'm sorry I question Chan's second place in the free at Worlds. I think that suggests perhaps the system needs to be looked at.
I think the audience understands its a judged sport and there are a lot of things they won't understand. However the program is riddled with lots of errors that even the audience notices. That shouldn't be ignored.
And well I think if we look at Frank's interview we will see its not just the casual fans who don't understand skating who have issues with high P/E marks for skaters who have programs littered with errors.
bek, you didn't actually answer the question.
1. How much should audience reaction matter?
2. How easily understood should the results be to an audience containing people of various levels of understanding?
I agree - when the overwhelming tone from a World Champion is not about three winners that were easily accepted but about the one that people really responded negatively to, something is definitely wrong. But I'm not convinced that the mob with pitchforks is really the best way to go about figuring out why.
Personally, I've read the rules. I like most of them. And no, I don't really understand Chan's victory. I had Chan 3rd or 4th in the LP and bronze overall (I thought Fernandez was hosed more than Ten, frankly).
I suggest checking out the new Frank Carroll interview on the Skating Podcast (it's in GSD). He talks about Denis, Patrick and "Chanflation." right at the beginning of the interview. VERY interesting to hear his take on the whole issue.
IMO, while the fans generally appreciate such qualities as power, speed, edges in skating and executing the jumps, many of the same fans tend to overlook the risks inherent in skating with such qualities. Imagine parallel parking a car at 5 mph vs 10 mph. I can understand the complaint about the current men’s champion not having skated a cleaner FS. But the way I see it, Chan built up a margin in SP, and he barely defended the lead by virtue of the quality of his skating. I truly believe Chan should have 1-2 fall cushion in SP+FS combined, for his quality.
I haven't cast a vote in this poll. If you allow me to rephrase the original polled question: Chan’s quality brought the scoring level in men’s singles to another level; has it riffled out to inflation of scores for other skaters? Yes!!
Frank Carroll is finally realizing Figure Skating is not judged fairly, and has probably never been. But nothing to do with Patrick Chan and supposed Chanflation. Good.
^^ I doubt Frank Carroll is just now realizing that fact when he lived through it in a trial by fire ... Maybe you're just realizing that he has had to deal with and knows more about the dirty underside of figure skating judging and politics than either you or I hopefully ever will. Frank also confirms as is pretty apparent that U.S. coaches and officials have never been too good at figure skating politicking. It really reeks what went on among the judges at the Lake Placid Olympics. But even watching at home as a young person who knew not much about figure skating, it seemed to me that something really was pretty strange about Annett Poetzch winning over Linda Fratianne at those Olympics.
In comparison, Chanflation is probably to Frank mainly just one of the current minor annoyances of IJS, among many. Of course Frank is not gonna complain about Patrick's win, or get caught up in the slang terminology. And Frank is right, it's a victory for Denis regardless, even though there is clearly a problem with the scoring (especially in the components) when you examine the performances and the scores closely for both sets of programs.
The last time Plushenko fell three times in one program, he was NOT rewarded for it!! He finished WAAAY down in the standings (although, in all fairness, the last time he did that was 2004!!) I am not 'stuck in the past'. I acknowledge that this wretched system is here to stay. All I can say is, (and if this is a 'hats off' to the old 6.0, then so be it) I want to see a World or Olympic champion who can complete his program ON HIS FEET, not having zamboni'ed half of the rink with his arse on the way there! Trying and continually failing must be hard work. But as long as he can spin and do footwork and transition like that, why not?? the man is a brilliant skater when he's 'ON"..but to receive such high scores after the falls just boggles the mind. I still don't get how you can get credit for things you ATTEMPT, but that you do not complete. From strictly a spectators POV, I do not enjoy watching skating anymore. Used to be, you skated clean, and you won with difficult elements AND the ability to defeat gravity. And I'm talking AFTER the demise of the 6.0. Even Evan Lysacek, who did not have a quad that didn't hurt him, chose to skate a clean program rather than trying to include the quad, which he probably would have either fallen out of or two-footed. HE knew the value and impact of a clean skate. had he tried the quad, from the correct take-off edge, made the rotation and crashed unceremoniusly into the boards, he would now be a footnote in skating history. There would have been no contest. Instead, his intellegent decision to omit the faulty quad garnered him the Olympic Gold..
There you go. It has just proved what I've said about "stuck in the past". Nuff said.
Partial credit, that's part of CoP.
"Clean skate" was the only card that Lysacek owned in order to compete with the top guys. He didn't have a quad anymore. If he put a quad into his program, it was guaranteed to fail. With his other non-outstanding qualities, one fall would have taken him out of the contention. So he had no choice but to skate clean with only triples if he wanted to stay competitively.
I know about partial credit...and I think it's absolute bullshit. A jump is a jump..a single element. NOT a bunch of pieces stuck together. Either you complete ALL of it, or you tank it, and should receive NO points for it! So, you took off right, got up there, got the revolutions in, and then crash landed. Somehow, it just gives skaters the opportunity to put in an element thay cannot complete, get half of the thing done, and then blow off the landing. Who cares if you can't land your quad?? You got 2 out of three right, and got points for those...UGH. It's a system that rewards skating above your ability. Ugly, ADHD fueled programs, everyone trying to cram as much into their programs as they can to get points. Call me 'stuck in the past' if you want. I'm not a skater myself. I have always been a spectator. And this system is NOT pretty to watch, except on very rare occasions. All I know is what I like to WATCH. (As I'm sure there are a good many people on here who feel the same way. ) I don't want to have to have a calculator handy when I'm watching competitions. Rarely will I see a skater competing now who truly inspires. There is one I've got my eye on for Sochi...I think he may just sneak past everyone who is looking at Chan and Ten, and may well surprise the lot of them.. Cannot wait for next season, if only for the priveledge of watching this young man skate...
As for Lysacek in Vancouver..he did stay competitive. Right up onto the Gold position on the podium.
Even though they're not entirely comparable, gymnastics went through a fugly period (where it's still existing but in a less extreme form) where gymnasts were just chucking skills and doing routines way above their skill level and getting credit for it. Of course, that was a reaction to safe 10.0 routines where boring, safe gymnasts who got to the 10.0 SV were being rewarded over gymnasts with more exciting routines who completed their elements but with a bit more execution errors.
I think they've been trying to figure out that balance for the past decade or so in gymnastics, and I see the same thing happening in figure skating.
The term is unfortunate, as it is not about Patrick; neither it is about being stuck in the past.
It is about the desire to adjust a relatively new and ever- changing system so that it has the best chance of rewarding the best skater of every particular competition. Currently I feel it is broken down into so many pieces that judges cannot operate in it without pre- judging. It does not matter whether it was the same under 6.0; what matters is that ideally it should not be the case.
People say that PCSs is not "artistic mark"; neither it is, I hope, a SS mark or a placement/reputation mark. Carroll addresses Ten's PCS increase from Short to Long; while it is somewhat inevitable that judges adjust their opinions based on SP success or failure, it should be minimized. PCS are not judged separately, which is another big problem IMO.
And I agree with posters who say that jump must be judged as a whole element, not "entrance/height/rotation/ landing". Well, except perhaps a difficult entrance bonus. Currently we see the system "pixelate" certain elements while ignoring bigger PCS distinctions.
But again, the whole debate is about the system and the ways to improve it, not about Patrick per se, who is an amazing skater.
Who should have won the silver medal overall in your analysis, Fernandez? Chan had an 18 points lead, roughly, to Fernandez after the short program and for Chan to take the bronze overall, he would have had to score around 150 points for the free skate, no? And since no analyst of Chan's FS had any serious complaint about his technical mark, it means his PC mark was the issue. So, if we keep Chan's technical mark at 82, we would have to bring Chan's PCS down to 68 for him to get a total segment score of 150 and for Fernandez to go home with the silver medal. By 17 points lower than the PCS of Takahashi who fell on the 3A and had just one (underrotated) quad and just one jump combination? By 9 points lower than the PCS of Brezina who had two falls? By 4 points behind the PCS of Verner who doubled and singled most of his jumps? Really? If Chan's PCS doesn't make sense for what he put out on the ice, perhaps we should question quite a few other PCSs and try to revise them. Or maybe my math is poor?
You do know that the skaters you have grouped as 'great' is based on a subjective opinion?
I think COP has allowed a new breed of skaters to develop - those with great basics who have the capacity to elevate technique to art. I'd include both Chan, Fernadez and Denis in that group. None are natural artists/performers IMO, not the way that Takahashi or Lambiel is.
Some skaters in the past have fit in this category as well, but the 6.0 system didn't allow them to flourish in the way the COP does. Fumie Suguri comes to mind as one with great basics in terms of SS.
And I wonder if Browning is more like Chan than Petrenko.
Maths always only apply to PChiddy.