Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 192
  1. #61

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,020
    vCash
    1561
    Rep Power
    4990
    Quote Originally Posted by Aussie Willy View Post
    Isn't that what the system is meant to do? Seriously you cannot have it both ways.

    Also what if it is the other way around? Doesn't do a quad, might have a couple of other problems but everything else is superb. Doesn't a skater deserve to get credit for that?
    The system DOES not do that when someone can fall 3 times in the short program and be within 3 points of someone else who goes clean. No Adam Rippon's skating skills are not nearly as good as Chan's but the boy is still a good skater. He has good spins, he landed good jumps including a triple axel, and he has nice musicality, choregraphy, and transitions. And the boy stayed on his feet during his footwork. To say that the system is rewarding good execution when that kind of mess from Chan is within 3 points of a beautiful program from Rippon is ridiculous in the extreme. I'm sorry, but no.

    6 points! 6 for falling but this system rewards execution? Please.

    No offence, but weren't you the person who bitched the most last season when Yuna won everything by accumulating huge GOEs for her gorgeous jumps? and when Plushenko didn't beat Lysacek with a 4/3?
    I love Yu-na. I only bitched when she won the long program at Worlds for a poor skate.. And I thought her PCS at Skate America for that awful Yu-na bomb were too high as well (if you want to be fair). And if you want to complain about Rachael Flatt being awful and not deserving to win Skate America. And I won't say that Yu-na didn't deserve to win because her huge lead from the short was fair. And yes I agree that Rachael is boring as heck skater. But in the end the way I look it is if Yu-na skates like crap well than she deserves to get low scores. Would have had that one closer.


    As for my complaints about GOE. My real issue is that its clear the judges use GOE to pad scores. And so I'm all for positive GOE being curtailed a bit.

    What I want, and what I've wanted a long time, is for errors, messy programs to be penalized more. So you don't see any ridiculousness like Kostner's silver medal at 2008 Worlds.

    In the end its not about "one jump" that I take issue with. I would have been seriously fine with giving Daisuke the win over Plushenko and Evan at the Olympics because I thought both were dire. Although I certainly wouldn't wuz robb Daisuke. I'm not one who thinks one mistake should take someone out, and I'm for the whole program being looked at. But when I see skaters falling multiple times etc, and then I see them getting huge scores, it drives me bananas. And I don't care who you are or if your my most favorite skater in the whole world.

  2. #62
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    11,194
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BittyBug View Post
    I don't think skaters should get any points for jumps on which they fall. Sorry, but I don't care if you had a great set up, nice entry, and looked good in the air. If you land on your derriere, you missed the jump and you shouldn't get any points. I've been accused of having a "6.0 mentality" for having this point of view, but I really don't think partial credit should be awarded in jumps.
    So someone who falls on a quad gets no points but someone who telegraphs, toe-axels, leans in the air, has both hands and feet down on the landing and flips out on a quad attempt, gets 7.X points?

  3. #63

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,020
    vCash
    1561
    Rep Power
    4990
    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post
    So someone who falls on a quad gets no points but someone who telegraphs, toe-axels, leans in the air, has both hands and feet down on the landing and flips out on a quad attempt, gets 7.X points?
    I think all visibile/glaring errors like that need to be more harshly penalized and I think 2 hands down on the jump should basically disqualify any jump if we are going to have a no points rule. Although maybe no 1 point deduction. (If you have to use both hands to support yourself major problems with the jump) If people don't like the whole no points idea I think base value deductions would be quite fair.

    But obviously if they are going to go to no points for falls other jumping errors should be more harshly penalized too.

    What are you talking about? Bek's a huge, staunch fan of Yuna.
    I think I lost my Yu-na uber badge when I dared to suggest that maybe triple axels should be worth a little more. And maybe that Yu-na shouldn't be getting a PCS lead over Mao when Yu-na skates poorly and Mao skates well. I love Yu-na but my love for the girl doesn't mean I have to see her win even if she skates poorly. I'm a fan of the sport more.
    Last edited by bek; 11-08-2010 at 06:51 AM.

  4. #64
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    11,194
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bek View Post
    As for my complaints about GOE. My real issue is that its clear the judges use GOE to pad scores. And so I'm all for positive GOE being curtailed a bit.

    What I want, and what I've wanted a long time, is for errors, messy programs to be penalized more. So you don't see any ridiculousness like Kostner's silver medal at 2008 Worlds.
    I loved it last year when quality was rewarded big and penalized big. Quality is every bit as important as difficulty IMO.

    If GOEs return to big values, skaters with quality elements like Kim, Lepisto and Chan have more advantage and all skaters are encouraged to improve the quality of their elements. [last season]

    If GOEs become small(er), especially in relation to base value, you have skaters going for broke and also not caring about quality. [this season]

    Having GOE scales that are big on positive and small on the negative will not solve your concern, but will probably be the best in encouraging skaters development.

    If you have a discouraging GOE scale that rewards small and penalizes big, which would force skaters to chicken out on hard jumps, you are again left with the Lepisto world bronze situation.

    Conclusion, for the nth time, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

  5. #65
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    556
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bek View Post
    Even if those skaters get up and continue multiple falls still cause an impact. People remember that so and so fell on three of his technical elements. A fall in and of itself is distracting.
    This is true, and inescapable, for most casual and serious fans, IMHO.

    With regard to how falls are recognized in the scoring, it would be good to see no scoring system changes except one:
    Rather than an additional/higher penalty for individual falls, instead provide an incentive (bonus points) for going clean ("clean" defined as no falls, or perhaps one fall in the program). But it would have to be a bonus only sufficient to get the skater's attention and provide a small reward but not enough to incent them to do nothing but easier jumps (e.g. a bonus of 4-5% of the total base values of all of their attempted jumps?...somebody can figure out the best value here). The % bonus concept is already used for jumps in the 2nd half.
    A "going clean" bonus would reward the idea of taking calculated risks and striking a balance between attempting what can and probably cannot be done.
    Even so, there will never be a scoring system that will satisfy everyone...if we're lucky just dissatisfy the fewest.

    .
    Last edited by geod2; 11-08-2010 at 08:49 AM.

  6. #66
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    11,194
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bek View Post
    Even if those skaters get up and continue multiple falls still cause an impact. People remember that so and so fell on three of his technical elements. A fall in and of itself is distracting. There's something to be said for a skater who executes all of his/her elements correctly.
    On a macro view, a good skate by someone isn't always going to be better than a bad skate by someone else.

    If Patrick Chan managed to place 4th at a short program with 3 falls, perhaps it isn't telling about the system so much as telling the weakness of the field, or just how much Patrick Chan is superior on everything else competing.

    I think it is Adam Rippon who was undescored, not Patrick Chan who was overscored. Judges impression is a long term thing and exists in all judging systems (and judged sports). If he keeps up his consistency this season and medal at GPF, he will receive higher PCS as the season goes on and can be a medal threat already come Worlds IMO. Look how long it took Kozuka to finally get some decent PCS that truly reflects his abilities.

  7. #67

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Age
    48
    Posts
    17,941
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    36617
    Quote Originally Posted by VIETgrlTerifa View Post
    Like, omigod, don't you know that URs are like the worst thing ever? I mean like if a skater has URs but lands it well with great air position...well, he/she/they/it should just quit the sport. They couldn't even rotate it all the way and fall like a real champion and innovator of the sport? Who do they think they are? Sarah Hughes? I mean come on...
    Yeah like but like yeah like ..... but!

    URs are pure eville and skaters should be have M&Ms thrown at them immediately after they have done one. The skater who ends up with the most M&Ms on the ice gets the most deductions.
    When you are up to your arse in alligators it is difficult to remember you were only meant to be draining the swamp.

  8. #68
    Quadless
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Celebrating the power of Pooh
    Posts
    15,037
    vCash
    325
    Rep Power
    43699
    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post
    So someone who falls on a quad gets no points but someone who telegraphs, toe-axels, leans in the air, has both hands and feet down on the landing and flips out on a quad attempt, gets 7.X points?
    If the skater toe axels then the jump should be called as UR, but other than that, YES. The goal of a jump is to stay on your feet when you land, plain and simple, so if you manage to do that, you should get some credit, and if you don't, then you shouldn't.
    "I miss footwork that has any kind of a discernible pattern. The goal of a step sequence should not be for a skater to show the same ice coverage as a Zamboni and take about as much time as an ice resurface. " ~ Zemgirl, reflecting on a pre-IJS straight line sequence

  9. #69
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,516
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BittyBug View Post
    I don't think skaters should get any points for jumps on which they fall. Sorry, but I don't care if you had a great set up, nice entry, and looked good in the air. If you land on your derriere, you missed the jump and you shouldn't get any points.


    Maybe you should be watching ice dancing and not singles or pairs.

    I won't find one judge, skater or coach who agrees with you.

  10. #70
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    672
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    yes --it should be a minus 5.
    it should be 2.5 off of technical and 2.5 off of pc's.
    not to mention , i also think a missed element in the short program that is required should be a -5, instead of no points.
    what is the point of a short program and having required elements if it doesn't take off points (no points) and requires the skater do to them. they miss the required element and they stay on top, yet the skaters who do the required elements gets nailed -why pc's to low.
    go figure.

  11. #71
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    672
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    the problem with the quad and triple axels and triple triples is they try them knowing full well they can't do them correctly in the first place and skaters expect high scores and bumped scores just for trying.
    yet the public wants to see a clean skate and good decent skating and jumps.
    what the public see is messy, unprepared jumps-jumps not done correctly, and not attempting to try to clean up jumps and overall messy program.

    with a messy program skaters can't draw the public into their skating, and the message the skater are trying to get across.
    all the skater is doing is saying see men jump-whether i do it right or not.
    watch me jumped, we want to see you skate a nice overall program, not just to see you jump. we know you can jump otherwise you wouldn't be in the sport in the first place. lets see what else you can do -like how you jump, how you interpret the program, how your personality shines within the program. if you concentrating on just a single jump, jumping pass -we see you jump but also how boring you are and your sport is.

  12. #72
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    186
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    My opinion on the original question, ....yes. It is not logical that a splat wipeout (4T) in a technical program on a required element (jump out of footwork) is valued higher that a clean jump (3Z or 3F). I think the old penalty was too much, but now, it seems reward for trying? Crazy.

  13. #73
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    116
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Personally to me the fall on the quad in Chan's program was not the problem, and the scoring of Chan's quad is not an issue also, the fall on the step sequence was though, and he only lost 2-3 points for it. It is a tech program and elements should be weighted generally the same when you miss one. He lost 4 points on the quad, 4 points on the axel, but only 2 on the steps for missing them. Should his pcs be as high as it was, probably, there is a huge difference between Chan, Takahashi, and the rest of the pack in terms of overall pcs. Abbot is close behind them, but Rippon and Oda almost look like juniors compared to Chan and Takahashi and this was very noticable when Chan skated before them in the free. I am not a Chan fan, much prefer Abbott and have liked Rippon the past year, and I was shocked to see how far he was behind in the complexity of the programs compared to Chan. Chan and Takahashi do things on skates that no other humans can right now, and it's not the jumps that make them that much better. The second mark under the current rules has nothing to do with the first one so his pcs is right. Depending on the range of marks he still may have been 4th under 6.0. 4.7+5,8 beats 5.2+5.1 . And their still room to put another skater in between them. And that's about what Alban would have scored under 6.0.

  14. #74
    Quadless
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Celebrating the power of Pooh
    Posts
    15,037
    vCash
    325
    Rep Power
    43699
    Quote Originally Posted by julieann View Post
    I won't find one judge, skater or coach who agrees with you.
    Then you need to expand your circle.
    "I miss footwork that has any kind of a discernible pattern. The goal of a step sequence should not be for a skater to show the same ice coverage as a Zamboni and take about as much time as an ice resurface. " ~ Zemgirl, reflecting on a pre-IJS straight line sequence

  15. #75
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,516
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BittyBug View Post
    Then you need to expand your circle.
    By all means find me one, cutting and pasting is pretty easy. I'm sure not one will say falling on a jump should get no points, especially if everything leading up to it is good....especially skaters who work very hard to get them.

    The system is far from perfect but there is no reason to swing the pendulum to the polar opposite. Otherwise this sport would have never been moved forward by those with the guts to raise the bar. Everyone may as well start doing single axels...how fun to watch!

  16. #76
    Quadless
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Celebrating the power of Pooh
    Posts
    15,037
    vCash
    325
    Rep Power
    43699
    Quote Originally Posted by julieann View Post
    By all means find me one, cutting and pasting is pretty easy. I'm sure not one will say falling on a jump should get no points, especially if everything leading up to it is good....especially skaters who work very hard to get them.
    LOL - considering that I used to skate, consider my posts your "one."

    Rather than try to make universal claims for an entire community, it would be more credible if you focused on your own reasoning, letting other speak for themselves. "I'm sure everyone else would think so" is not a particularly persuasive argument (at least for me).
    "I miss footwork that has any kind of a discernible pattern. The goal of a step sequence should not be for a skater to show the same ice coverage as a Zamboni and take about as much time as an ice resurface. " ~ Zemgirl, reflecting on a pre-IJS straight line sequence

  17. #77

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,472
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    21476
    Quote Originally Posted by mumboman View Post
    He lost 4 points on the quad, 4 points on the axel, but only 2 on the steps for missing them.
    He lost a little more than 2 points for the fall on the steps.

    The step sequence was called as level 2; without the fall he most likely would have gotten credit for at least level 3, which has a full point higher base mark than level 2. (If he would have gotten level 4, that would be 1.6 points higher base mark.) He also got a fall deduction.

    So that's 2 full points right there.

    Then there was the GOE, which averaged -2 -- most judges gave either -1 or -3. The -GOE values for level 2 step sequence is not very large because the base mark is not very large, so he ended up losing 0.60 points to GOE.

    It seems that most of the judges who gave -1 GOE for the step sequence also gave quite high Skating Skills marks (over 8, even over 9 in one case), whereas most of the judges who gave -3 gave lower SS scores.

    While I was watching live on TV, I was thinking 8-ish for Skating Skills even after the jump falls and during the step sequence I was thinking +2, maybe +3 for the steps. Then when he fell I immediately thought -3 off the +2 would give -1, but wait, after he got up he missed a couple of steps and was a little sloppy with the remaining ones. OK, -3 for the element after all, too bad because it started out so well, and no 8s today. In fact, my just-for-fun scores were almost identical to those of the judge in the last column.

    Nevertheless, I still had Chan with the highest PCS of the SP, with only Oda coming close.

    It seems that in this case some judges remained impressed by Chan's skating skills despite the fall on the steps and penalized that element and PCS only slightly. Others penalized the element but not the PCS or vice versa, and some penalized both.

    We tend to agree with the ones who went down on both the step sequence GOE and the PCS and to disagree with those who kept both scores high. But we weren't sitting where they were and judging with their knowledge. Maybe they were really impressed with everything else and would have given 9.5 or more for a clean skate, +3 for the step sequence without the fall.

    Should his pcs be as high as it was, probably, there is a huge difference between Chan, Takahashi, and the rest of the pack in terms of overall pcs.
    Agreed.

    Abbot is close behind them, but Rippon and Oda almost look like juniors compared to Chan and Takahashi and this was very noticable when Chan skated before them in the free.
    I was more impressed with Oda in that short program -- for one thing, he actually had some significant transitions that involve strong skating skills, like the edge pulls on the landing of one of the jumps -- unlike last year when his programs were pretty empty between elements. I agree the long program was less impressive.

    I saw a more significant difference in apparent speed, depth of edge, etc., between Oda and Rippon than between Oda and Chan in the short. But of course, I was just watching on TV.

    4.7+5,8 beats 5.2+5.1 . And their still room to put another skater in between them. And that's about what Alban would have scored under 6.0.
    Yup.

    It's hard to know exactly what Preaubert would have scored under 6.0 because when the system was in use that kind of jump content could have earned 5.4 or better for required elements.

    But on that particular day, rule changes and Kevin Reynolds raised the bar for good, so going back to a 6.0 mindset for senior men in 2010 onward it would be hard to give a base mark over 5.5 for to anyone without one quad (which Chan attempted and rotated), or else some pretty darn impressive quality and difficulty in the other skills (which Chan had). And Preaubert's elements were clean but not that special; ditto the presentation. So yeah, low 5s would be likely. Exactly how that would balance out with Chan's deductions . . . well, I expect we would have seen mixed ordinals for 4-5-6 in that SP.

  18. #78
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,516
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BittyBug View Post
    LOL - considering that I used to skate, consider my posts your "one."

    Rather than try to make universal claims for an entire community, it would be more credible if you focused on your own reasoning, letting other speak for themselves. "I'm sure everyone else would think so" is not a particularly persuasive argument (at least for me).
    I used to skate as well, that is how I know much more goes into a jump than just the landing, no matter how offensive it is to the eye and should be rewarded/deducted ACCORDINGLY.

    Find someone in the international ranks, not someone who medaled at Midwest sectionals, but someone in the top 10 of the world who thinks it's fair to work 15 or 20 years on something very difficult and not get credit for any of it.

    Why not go one step further; if someone falls, just disqualify them, how dare they fall especially while they are revolving 4 times in seconds. Ggive proper credit where it is due. It's not all or nothing, I'm glad the ISU agrees.

  19. #79

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Top Secret FSU Witness Protection Location
    Age
    31
    Posts
    20,720
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    35102
    In the short program, YES! Either compound the falls so that the first is -1, then -2 then -3 and so forth OR make the required elements such that a fall on one of them results in an automatic 0. I know this will anger people and no one will try quads, etc, but it is REQUIRED elements we are talking about. You can go all out in the LP and show off your quads, 3/3's etc.

    julieann, you are really exaggerating. You act as if a fall on a jumps means they will receive 0 points for it for the rest of their life. It is just ONE jump in one competition. They get to go home and work on improving. I don't agree with the 0 points rule in the LP but I whole heartedly think it should be the rule for the SP.
    -Brian
    "Michelle would never be caught with sausage grease staining her Vera Wang." - rfisher

  20. #80

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Age
    28
    Posts
    11,834
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I agree with the idea that a fall should get 0 points in the SP. It is the technical program after all and splatting on a required element should be a severe penalty.

    The LP is a different story.

    So, I just basically agree with BigB08822's post.

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •