The world medalists in 1988 were Witt, Manley and Thomas.
Witt - had the 3T and 3S and her "big risk" was the 3 Loop which she doubled in the LP.
Manley - attempted 3T, 3S, 3Lp and 3Lz, she didn't even attempt at 3F and at worlds two footed the loop and had no 3/3. So even if she had landed all the content, the lack of flip is comparable to Carolina's lack of Lutz, but she had no 3/3, so to my mind that's less.
Thomas - Like Witt had 3T, 3S, and her big risk was the 3Loop also. She was attempting 3T/3T but not succeeding with it.
Ito (who finished 6th at worlds) had an LP with all triple jumps attempted except axel (but she doubled the flip in the LP), she attempted (stepped out of)3T/3T, and landed a 2A/half loop/3S. (at Olys she landed all the content)
Of those, the "medalists" did not have as difficult jumps as Carolina did in her 2011 worlds outing. The only one who had arguably harder content than Carolina is Ito, who came 6th, and we've already established she is the exception to the rule.
1988 content was basically most skaters trying triple toe and sal, some skaters having one of loop, flip or Lutz to attempt, one (maybe two) skater with two harder triples and only one attempting all 5. Every single skater included intentional doubles of the jumps they didn't have as triples.
Last edited by antmanb; 11-25-2011 at 05:19 PM.
While I like scoring along with COP, it is much easier to follow the old system.
I'm sorry, but getting a 5.7 basically means: you were not perfect, but pretty darn good.
Or, you made no mistakes, but are somewhat lacking in edging/speed/spins, etc..
By getting a 123.61, all it means is that "hey, they must be in first place because skater x got 119.08 about 45 minutes ago".
You have no idea how they got to "123.61" whereas a 5.7 is much more understandable. You can reason a "5.7".
As mentioned, I don't mind COP. I know the rules. But lots of skating fans who are never going to study up on the hundreds of rules/edge changes/sequences are going to appreciate the sport as much if they don't understand it.
Do you believe the footwork and spins she's doing are equal in technical difficulty to what the top laides were doing in the late eighties?
"If I agree well it's just to appease you 'cause I don't remember what were fighting for..." - Sarah McLachlan
That being said, I don't have a big problem with any of Caro's placements this year. While I would like to see her challenege herself more, if the other ladies aren't going to skate cleanly and with mature presentation that's not Caro's fault.
I think the reaction to COP is more deserving of blame than COP itself. Coaches, choreographers and skaters are so obsessed with the elements that have a prescribed base value, they've forgotten what skating is about. I don't think anyone can fairly say that COP doesn't reward "true" skating, because people haven't given it many chances to see what properly applied COP will do with great "old school" programs.
As for COP encouraging 'easier' programs, I disagree. On paper, 7 triples sounds harder than 5 triples, but when you remember that the 7 triple program could include cheats, 3 flips (counting as 2 lutzes and a flip) and loads of crossovers with little to no penalty, it's not really easier, is it?
"Puccini cries out for spirals, but really good ones." ~ Dick Button, 1998 Worlds
Suppose you used to be a figure skating fan 10 or 20 or 24 years ago and you had a good sense of what the standards were then. But then you didn't follow the sport for a decade or more in the interim, or you only watch the Olympics, so you don't really know what kinds of content are expected.
You tune in to the ladies' SP at the Olympics and the first program you see isthis.
Or this (sorry, couldn't find the Olympic version online; this is cleaner anyway)
Or this (couldn't find Olympic version online)
What kind of numbers do you expect for those programs, watching with 1988 or 1994 eyes and allowing for the changes in short program requirements but not knowing how many skaters will take advantage of the options for harder content? Or watching with 2011 eyes not knowing how they actually placed?
In 1998 we knew that first example was a potentially medal-worthy performance and worthy of 5.7s, but without the context of the state of ladies' figure skating in 1998 it could be worth anything. Only as you continue watching and get a feel for what kinds of performances earn what kinds of marks can you start to make sense of whether the jump content is high or low or average for that era, ditto the difficulty of the spins and steps, whether jump content tends to outweigh edges and speed or vice versa, whether artistic strengths or deficiencies (e.g., in carriage, extension, projection to the audience, program theme and construction, phrasing of the music) can outweigh any of the above.
So the numbers that the judges put up, compared to the maximum mark of 6.0, tell us how they think this performance fits in compared to the rest of the field at that time, but they don't tell us why.
So the every-4-years casual fans can only sit back and accept that one performance was pretty good, or mediocre, or great, or weak according to how far the judges' marks differ from 6.0.
Or they could be told what the current IJS world record number is for that discipline and get a sense of how close or far the scores are from that number.
Either way, the scores read quickly in the kiss-and-cry are not going explain the reasons.
One advantage for the casual fan is that 6.0 always means "best we can expect in this discipline at this point in skating history" even though the best expected in different disciplines is different because the types of elements are different (or men do pretty much the same kinds of elements as ladies, but usually with harder jumps).
For the more devoted fans, and for the skaters themselves, with IJS but not with 6.0 there is a place to go to find out the details of the scoring. It's just not convenient to present all that information in real time while the competition is in progress and the next skater is ready to start.
As mentioned, I don't mind COP. I know the rules. But lots of skating fans who are never going to study up on the hundreds of rules/edge changes/sequences are going to appreciate the sport as much if they don't understand it.[/QUOTE]
I think there would be no talk about "decline in figure skating" if USA would have some successful lady skaters to win big international competitions. I don´t think that CoP is that difficult to understand, at least the basics. It is just a question of an attitude that prevents some people from even trying to understand it, IMO.
Nowadays lots of skaters have really beautiful quality programs, the difference is that they are more difficult to skate than those in 6.0 era. During those days there were also lots of programs that were not quality programs, exactly the same as today.
With COP, I know what the top 3 scores are to date. With wedgie data, it tells me what it needed for the next skater to overtake the lead. Even on TV here in Canada, we are told what kind of score is needed. We have also been fortunate to be told what kind of scores are considered good, excellent, outstanding in both short and free in all disciplines. I guess having commentators who have knowledge of these kinds of things and realize that their audience would benefit from it is a bonus - at least to those of us who like COP -- even if I think it still needs tweaking.
Crazy about sports!
Carolina Kostner receives so much chastising and insults for omitting the 3Lutz, yet it seems okay at large by many that Mirai Nagasu omits the 3flip and 3Salchow, that Yu-Na Kim omits the 3loop, that Miki Ando omits the 3flip, that Alissa Czisny omits the 3Salchow, that Mao Asada omitted the 3Lutz and 3Salchow for multiple seasons, that Ksenia Makarova omits the 3Lutz, that Cynthia Phaneuf omits the 3flip, and so on and so forth. I guess I just don't get the double standard.
Last edited by museksk8r; 11-25-2011 at 07:46 PM.
I actually do miss wringing my hands and having trouble swallowing waiting to see if kristi could land that darn 3sal or if Kwan could do the loop, etc...
And it is frustrating when caro leaves out her 3z and then still manages to botch the 3f, which is neither repeated nor in combo
You know I lurves ya. However, I do believe you're talking nonsense.
This is what we used to get under 6.0: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj_S_QhT8fk
This is what we get now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slgu2...eature=related
I know which I prefer.
Unfair! Under 6.0, it was possible to skate exquisitely and musically to elevator music:
"'Is this new BMW-designed sled the ultimate sledding machine for Langdon and Holcomb?' Leigh Diffey asked before the pair cruised to victory. I don’t know, but I know that sled is the ultimate Olympic Games product placement.." -- Jen Chaney
Also was it fair to skaters to try and sum up their performances under just two marks? At least skaters get credit now whereas 6.0 was all about deductions. And it is a hell of lot more transparent than what it used to be.
If anything IJS has pushed skaters to become more well balanced and pay attention to everything, not just be the best jumper which is what 6.0 encouraged.
When you are up to your arse in alligators it is difficult to remember you were only meant to be draining the swamp.
In the short program there were mandatory deductions for various kinds of errors, similar to the negative GOEs now.
In both short and long programs there were deductions for rule violations (e.g., illegal moves, illegal music, illegal costume, running over or under the time allowance, repeating too many triple jumps in the LP or repeating the same triple without a combination).
But those deductions were not subtracted from a perfect 6.0, except for the very very best skaters in the world at the time who would have been worthy of 6.0 if not for those SP errors or rule violations.
For the vast majority of skaters, the judges had to come up with a base mark that essentially represented in their minds "How good was this performance, on a scale of 0 to 6 where 0 is not skated, 3 is mediocre, 4 is good, 5 is very good, and 6 is perfect and flawless?"
Then if they decided for each program that this skating overall, taking into account the basic skating and the difficulty of the elements and the success or failure thereof, was about halfway between good and very good, they could score 4.5 for technical merit. And if they thought it was better than that in presentation they'd give a tenth or a couple tenths more than 4.5 for the second mark, vice versa if they thought the presentation was not as good.
Then they would take deductions if any deductions were warranted. In short programs, some usually were. In long programs, only rarely.
But the skaters and the spectators never knew exactly which aspects of the skating each judge or the judges as a group considered in setting their base marks and which they ignored, and they didn't know exactly which deductions were taken. (Maybe some of the rule violation deductions like time deductions or illegal element deductions taken by the referee were publicized?)