Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 55
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    34
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0

    1998 Olympics Ladies FS Under COP

    I'm not an expert on COP so perhaps someone can give me perspective on this one.

    I know it's hard to compare between the 6.0 system and COP, but with everything else staying the same, would the top five ladies in the 1998 Olympics (Lipinski, Kwan, Chen, Butyrskaya, Slutskaya) had been the same under results under the COP system?

    Just looking at the top 2, Tara Lipinski had more difficulty in her jumps than other other ladies which would've increase her base value, but were they fully rotated and what about her levels in her spins?

    How were Michelle Kwan's jumps in terms of being fully rotated? What levels would she have received in her spins?

    I imagine Michelle Kwan would've beaten Tara Lipinski in program components.

    Any thoughts????

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    12,332
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    We can't compare, but the only thing I can say is that Michelle had 8 jumping passes : only 7 are allowed under CoP. So, virtually, MK had one triple less than Tara.
    Plus, Tara had faster spins.
    I don't think Michelle has any underrotated jump, although Tara's 3Loop/3Loop looks short.
    Anyway, TES is for Tara IMO.

    Of course, I prefer MK's glide and choreography. It was a pleasure to watch her with this beautiful LP.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    664
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I'm happy you have started this thread as this is something I have always thought about-also what about Baiul & Kerrigan in 94'?.
    For me this system rewards the technical more than the artistic so I'm thinking that Lipinski would still win.
    Would Kwan's flip have had a deduction?.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Age
    31
    Posts
    3,346
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    8369
    Lipinski
    Kwan
    Slutskaya
    Butyrskaya
    Lu

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,456
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    I tried calling and judging the 98 LPs for myself once a few years go and I came up with 1 Kwan, 2 Slutskaya, 3 Lipinski in the LP.

    There's no "correct" answer, though, unless there's a huge difference between the performances.

    One variable is which year's IJS rules we use for levels and throwing out extra elements.

    And then there's room for different judgments on PCS and some of the GOEs.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,060
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Lipinski's jumps were small and barely off the ground.

    How would that fare with COP?

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    7,390
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4361
    Also, what about the SP? The elements were the same for all, so Lipinski wouldn't have had the tech advantage she had in the FS. Could someone have gotten a big lead after the SP?

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    98
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by alchemy void View Post
    Lipinski
    Kwan
    Slutskaya
    Butyrskaya
    Lu
    ^^ agreed based on TES (Lu would have been lower than 5th overall instead of 3rd IMO)

    Kwan would outscore Lipinski on PCS, but it's hard to say by how much. I'd still give the edge to Lipinski based on her superior technical content.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,456
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    Quote Originally Posted by demetriosj View Post
    Lipinski's jumps were small and barely off the ground.

    How would that fare with COP?
    For those that had good flow and were clearly fully rotated, she could have gotten 0 or possibly +1 GOE, but not higher than that.

    Any < calls would lead to -GOE.

    Bigger jumps by some of the other skaters might have earned +2 from the more generous judges.

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,125
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by briancoogaert View Post
    We can't compare, but the only thing I can say is that Michelle had 8 jumping passes : only 7 are allowed under CoP. So, virtually, MK had one triple less than Tara.
    Since they weren't competing under CoP I don't think that's relevant. All we can do is apply CoP standards to the elements that they did (that were legal at the time) and assume a version of CoP that allowed those jumps. Similarly spins are mostly going to have to be decided on GoE rather than levels since they weren't trying for levels (I can tell because neither lady's spins made me want to scratch my eyes out).

    I'm not sure at all that Lipinski's 3r-3r would be ratified, especially under the incredibly anаl standards that have ruled much of CoP's existence. The very low height she achieved would also not help her GoE scores.

    It's also hard to know what would have happened with edge calls....

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,190
    vCash
    400
    Rep Power
    32587
    Quote Originally Posted by Mafke View Post
    Since they weren't competing under CoP I don't think that's relevant. All we can do is apply CoP standards to the elements that they did (that were legal at the time) and assume a version of CoP that allowed those jumps.
    I guess you could say since they weren't competing under COP what's the point in trying to work out what it would have been like under COP at all. But if you are going to bother trying to evaluate it under COP you have to do something to make the performances comparable. I don't know how many jumping passes the other skaters had but if they don't all have 8 then there is no way to level the playing field in terms of TES earned by jumps. If you are going to ignore some of the COP rules but not others then it's also going to skew the comparison and make the comparison even more meaningless than it already is.

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,125
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by antmanb View Post
    I guess you could say since they weren't competing under COP what's the point in trying to work out what it would have been like under COP at all.

    If you are going to ignore some of the COP rules but not others then it's also going to skew the comparison and make the comparison even more meaningless than it already is
    .
    Well yeah, it's an academic exercise but potentially kind of interesting as long as you remember the limitations.

    It also shows possible different directions CoP could have taken instead of the ugly mess it actually became. Again, academic but maybe interesting.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,456
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    The thing is, if you judge it by 2006 rules you might get a different result than using 2010 rules or 2012. So there's never any real answer even if the "judges" keep the same GOEs and PCS for all versions.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Age
    48
    Posts
    17,934
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    33055
    You can still look at giving GOEs to the elements and also components. And you could apply the rules of the day rather than trying to put the rules as they are now onto the event. Of course it it is difficult to try and apply levels when that is not what the skaters were trying to achieve back then.
    When you are up to your arse in alligators it is difficult to remember you were only meant to be draining the swamp.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Some place competitive and athletic, but ultimately more like an audition than anything else.
    Posts
    7,785
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    19516
    Kwan would have had a huge lead after the SP, much larger than just being 1st in the 6.0 "control your own destiny" scenario. I think she might have come in 2nd in the LP by less than her lead in the SP, therefore winning in a Scott Hamiliton sort of way . . . but this is just the same old debate in a new form.
    Last edited by bardtoob; 03-19-2012 at 10:12 PM.

  16. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    the Rainbow State
    Age
    32
    Posts
    2,345
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    0
    IMO whatever TES advantage Lipinski had by having the 3-3s would be offset by definite negative GoE on her horrible flutzes and 0 GoE at most for her roller skater 2As in both programs. Lipinski may have spun faster, but Kwan had better positions on everything except the layback. Kwan also had the better spirals.

  17. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    “It is far more important to have a good judge than a possible conflict of interest." - Ottavio Cinquanta
    Posts
    1,635
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Tara may have had faster spins, but Michelle spun in BOTH directions... Tara had one hard jumping pass but likely would have had edge calls. Michelle had one wonky landing but fully rotated. The quality and basics of MK's skating were so above and beyond Tara's, and that's where she should have won IMO. It's pretty obvious MK had bad luck because of the skate order. In IJS the SP would have counted towards MK's total score, but under 6.0 she basically went into the FS starting over and tied with Tara, so the SP has to be judged as well to use IJS. It's the same debate over and over, but we all know who the real winner is. Like everybody said at MK's induction ceremony, "She would have won in any Olympics BUT that one" -- Also Scott saying "These would have been 6.0s had she been the last skater" -- I think that tells everyone that something was wrong with the ladies' scoring in 98.
    Last edited by leafygreens; 03-19-2012 at 11:54 PM.

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,430
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by leafygreens View Post
    It's the same debate over and over, but we all know who the real winner is.
    Please don't speak for me or others.

  19. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,430
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by attyfan View Post
    Also, what about the SP? The elements were the same for all, so Lipinski wouldn't have had the tech advantage she had in the FS. Could someone have gotten a big lead after the SP?
    It's been so long and I'm going by memory but didn't Lipinski have a more difficult solo triple? She may have even done a triple lutz-double loop for her combo too. Or am I confusing that element with Irina and Sarah in 2002? Regardless I thought Kwan was overall superior in the short to all the ladies. In the long, not so much.

  20. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    328
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Lipinski did a 3 flip and kwan did a 3 toe solo jump in the short- We are all forgetting the horrid edge call on Lipinski's lutz edge and she had 3 between both programs.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •