Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 39 of 39
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,473
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    21476
    Quote Originally Posted by kwanfan1818 View Post
    Stojko.

    The front vs. back-loading on the elements doesn't take into consideration the difficulty of the entrances or exits for jumps or the transitions between elements: the difficulty of the footwork, changes of direction and placement, or how close the elements are to each other, like footwork going directly into a spin.
    Quote Originally Posted by BreakfastClub View Post
    I'd like to see a detailed analysis of Dai vs. Chan on that!
    Could you do it yourself?

    I'd give it a try -- any particular performances I should look at?

  2. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,469
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Jumps and where they are placed do not alone fulfill the requirements for a well balanced program. The link below describes what critieria have to be met for a program to be determined to be well balanced or just plain balanced.

    http://www.iceskatingintnl.com/archi...s/wellsngl.htm

  3. #23
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    19,212
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    44320
    One issue raised was the difficulty of back-loading the jumps. Difficult <> Well-balanced.

    Well-balanced in terms of the elements is only one part of well-balanced. Well-balanced, as well as relative difficulty are included in the following components:

    Skating skills:
    • Mastery of multi directional skating
    • Mastery of one foot skating

    Transitions:
    • Variety
    • Intricacy

    Performance/Execution:
    • Variety and contrast

    Choreography:
    • Proportion (equal weight of parts)
    • Pattern and ice coverage

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Could you do it yourself?

    I'd give it a try -- any particular performances I should look at?
    I couldn't, for one thing, because I don't recognize all of the edge changes and the relative difficulty of the edge changes on the elements that follow.

    Maybe "Blues for Klook" vs. "Aranjuez", GPF?

    I think that there should be a PCS equivalent of the technical panel that gives a level for choreography, a level for transitions, and a level for concept -- although, I'm starting to think a level for choreographic difficulty and a level for choreographic balance might be needed -- and that the judges should judge the quality of the skating basics (not just skating skills, but including carriage, toe point, turnout, stretch, etc.), how well the program was skated, and how well the choreography was interpreted.

    So many of the PCS bullet points are for content, anyway, regardless of how the skater performs from one event to another. I'd like to see experts focused on the content and leveling it, while the judges focus on quality.
    Last edited by kwanfan1818; 03-28-2012 at 11:36 PM.
    "The team doesn't get automatic capacity because management is mad" -- Greg Smith, agile guy

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,761
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I've done enough research to know that numbers can be twisted in all sorts of interesting ways, depending on what you're trying to show

    Quote Originally Posted by Vash01 View Post
    A quad really needs fresh legs. IIRC Lambiel was one of the few (and I think a Chinese skater whose name I forget, was another one, plus Tim Goebel in the old days) who did a second quad deep into his LP. May be Joubert too? I am not sure.
    Yes, Joubert too - when he did the three-quad LP the final one was after the halfway mark; I remember it was mentioned in the broadcast. I don't think he's tried that since.

  5. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    626
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Mike. Pike. Memories. Evoked.
    Heh. Patrick+Lunge=Plunge? P-Lunge? I called it first!

    Abbott for one is just as balanced as Chan, and I dare say if they skated their programs 100% as intended that Abbott would have the edge. Chan is more consistent, however.

  6. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    276
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by agalisgv View Post
    From YOUR link:

    Abbott: 48-52
    Fernandez: 46-54

    If that doesn't qualify as close to 50-50, you're in denial.
    In denial of what? The scale's still not going to balance, will it? Who's in denial here?

    I should also say your link looked at scores with GOE added in. But that actually skews the result for Chan, because if you look at just the value of the elements themselves (which would mean how the elements are choreographed in the program), that results in a 49-51 split for Chan. Which is a whopping 1% difference from Abbott. It just so happens that at 4C's where Chan's number is taken from, he overperformed in the first half of his program and underperformed in the second half (meaning his higher GOE on elements in the first half outweighed his GOE in the second half, making it look like there was a 50/50 split in element value when in fact there wasn't).
    The article DID indicate by using each skater's highest score. You can go ahead and challenge the article all I care. Hey, why not make up something else to make Chan's LP off balance, that'd be even better, wouldn't it?

    So no, Chan does not an exclusive on well-balanced programs. The numbers don't lie
    Yup, numbers don't lie only some like to believe it.

  7. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    276
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by agalisgv View Post
    I realize this is shooting fish in a barrel, but one more thing.

    Chan's split at the GPF was: 45-55. If we use the article's method of adding in GOE, Chan's split now becomes 42-58--pretty close to Takahashi's backended number.

    Abbott's split at the GPF was 48-52. IOW, more balanced than Chan.

    But the obvious fallacy in all this is the scores don't reflect what was actually *planned* in the program--only what was performed. So a 1A may not have been planned in the first half, but it's listed under required elements anyway because the skater popped his 3A attempt. So this doesn't have anything to do with actual choreography since you'd have to look at what the elements that were planned for, not what was actually performed.

    Anyhow, this is all rather basic and intuitive I think for most folk.
    The format of the calculation is designed for a perfect skated LP. Since NOBODY has or will skate a perfect LP, it used the skaters' best scores. I see some people are now plotting every calculation to make sure what's presented in front of them is wrong wrong wrong

  8. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    276
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by nylynnr View Post
    I'm not sure I would denigrate the Toronto Star. Do you watch Mad Men? It's rather like Don Draper saying Lucky Strikes are toasted. The marketing, PR, and handling of Patrick Chan has been, IMO, near-masterful over the past 3 or 4 years, with the obvious China glitch. The chart, which took some expert consult, will be ridiculed on FSU but I think it's an effective counter to the many who are belatedly writing Chan is over scored. Guess we'll see in Nice.
    Only because many Chan haters are here, and of course, they will like to discredit everything that's Chan related. But I'm glad people like Browning, Cranston, Boitano and Orser see something some FSU people don't. Who's more credibility here, those great skaters or the people on this board?

  9. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    23,863
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jettasian View Post
    Only because many Chan haters are here, and of course, they will like to discredit everything that's Chan related.
    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and tell you some of the people commenting in this thread are extremely knowledgeable on COP, and are trying to explain to you the inaccuracies in the chart.

    Obviously you can choose to listen or not, but I really wouldn't dismiss the posts here. If you can't understand the judging criteria sheet that Iceman was kind enough to post, then ask for clarification. I particularly encourage you to listen to what gkelly is saying as she is one of the most knowledgeable posters on COP at FSU. Kwanfan1818 is also quite informed.

    If all you want is to be a mindless uber, that's certainly your prerogative. But virtually everyone in this thread likes and appreciates Chan's skating a lot. It's just people are knowledgeable enough to know the chart you posted is wanting in terms of accuracy and relevance.

  10. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    23,863
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    I'd give it a try -- any particular performances I should look at?
    If you could also add in an analysis of Abbott with Chan and Dai, I would very much enjoy reading that (again, using GP Final).




  11. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    685
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by agalisgv View Post
    If you could also add in an analysis of Abbott with Chan and Dai, I would very much enjoy reading that (again, using GP Final).



    +1 thank you!!

  12. #32

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    620
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I love the way this paper explains a lot of concepts in judging!

  13. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Ottawa
    Posts
    678
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I'm at work so don't have much time to look at it now but will do so later in the week.

    Whether you are a fan or not .. and hey I like the competitors especially Dai but unless you're blind .. Chan is very, very, very good at what he does.

  14. #34

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,473
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    21476
    Quote Originally Posted by kwanfan1818 View Post
    I couldn't, for one thing, because I don't recognize all of the edge changes and the relative difficulty of the edge changes on the elements that follow.

    Maybe "Blues for Klook" vs. "Aranjuez", GPF?
    Quote Originally Posted by agalisgv View Post
    If you could also add in an analysis of Abbott with Chan and Dai, I would very much enjoy reading that (again, using GP Final).
    Here are Takahashi and Chan. I'll try to get to Abbott tonight or soon.


    Boldface, intricacy; italics, difficulty; asterisk, good quality of transitional element

    TAKAHASHI

    LBI pivot 2 revolutions*
    RFO three
    Wide 2-foot 180-degree turn
    Crossovers
    Mohawk, two feet, step forward, LFO three into 4T
    Quick turns (threes and mohawks); two feet with torso moves
    Simple steps, hold back edge to 3A, held landing
    Forward outside three, back outside choctaw
    Cross in front three times, change edge up into 3S
    Toe assisted edge change into three turn
    Brief inside spread eagle counterclockwise, wide step to clockwise crossover
    Back inside mohawk, RFI three into change camel spin
    Stop and brief pose on two feet, starts skating directly into circular steps
    continuing directly into flying combo spin

    Pose, counterclockwise turns on two feet, clockwise traveling threes or slow RBI double twizzle;
    Forward outside three, threes and mohawks both directions
    Back edge to 3A+3T
    Step forward to forward crossovers
    LFO choctaw
    Mohawks into 3F+2T
    Traveling threes with wide free leg
    Other small steps and free leg flairs into 3Lo
    Backward dancy two-foot edge changes
    Clockwise toe turn, step forward, RFI bracket
    RBO three to two foot, forward crossovers
    Mohawks or shallow choctaws, mohawk, cross step to 3Lz+2T
    Small mazurka
    Three, cross, step forward, forward crossovers
    Quick mohawks, traveling threes, mohawk to 3F
    Step forward, two foot, torso move, clockwise half turn
    RBO 1.5 twizzle, pose
    Straight-line choreo steps
    Two feet with brief inside spread eagle, arm and head moves
    Step forward, slide chasse, forward inside three into combo spin


    CHAN
    LBI pivot
    small LFO rocker, two feet, RBO three
    small Ina/lunge with torso, knee lilt in stroking
    Forward crossovers, LFO choctaw, LBO mohawk, RFO three, LFO three to 4T (the turns aren't difficult in themselves, but deep curves and turns in both directions to set up a quad is unusual -- thanks to Kurt Browning for pointing this out)
    Forward crossovers, LFO counter, cross
    LBO three, LFI mohawk (? camera angle changes), step out and back (mohawks? choctaws?) to right, step forward to left, LFO three to 4T+2T
    (same caveats)
    LFO three, RBO rond de jambe
    mohawks and threes in both directions (or RFO rocker?)
    3A
    mazurka to lunge, into circular steps
    RBO stretch to flying combo spin
    RFI rocker with free foot assist?
    Two-foot lungy glides both directions
    pose, lunge
    clockwise forward crossovers, RFO three, hopped choctaw clicking feet in air
    two feet, LFI mohawk, cross to 3Lz+1Lo+3S
    two-foot clockwise glide
    RBO three (CCW), LFI mohawk (CW), crossover, RBI three, two-foot arm stretch, mohawk, 3Lo
    two-foot clockwise glide
    RBO three-RFI mohawk, forward crossovers, LFO choctaw-half walley
    RBO three, mohawk to 3F+3T step forward into
    change sitspin

    RBO three? two-foot turn changing lobe and direction
    back crossovers, backward hop (off balance) into 3Lz (fall)
    forward crossovers, two-foot turn changing lobe to
    outside spread eagle, back three-mohawk into 2A
    intentional big back double three on landing
    step forward, crossover, RFO rocker, crossover
    to choreo steps
    combo spin
    pose, brief inside spread eagle, knee pose

    If I had to summarize, for those two specific performances I'd say Takahashi had a bit more intricacy and more quality that day and Chan had more variety and difficulty, particularly in ways that also contribute to Skating Skills as well as Transitions

    Feel free to argue specifics

  15. #35

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Gwyneth Paltrow Fan Club headquarters
    Posts
    17,316
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    32204
    Quote Originally Posted by jettasian View Post
    Since NOBODY has or will skate a perfect LP
    I thought you were arguing that's what Chan does every time.
    You should never write words with numbers. Unless you're seven. Or your name is Prince. - "Weird Al" Yankovic, "Word Crimes"

  16. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    23,863
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Thanks gkelly--great analysis.

    I did wonder if:

    LFO choctaw, LBO mohawk, RFO three, LFO three to 4T
    and
    LBO three, LFI mohawk (? camera angle changes), step out and back (mohawks? choctaws?) to right, step forward to left, LFO three to 4T+2T

    Would they really be considered intricate, or just unique?

  17. #37

    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    24,950
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    91872
    Gkelly,

    Fantastic work! Thanks for all the details.

  18. #38

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,473
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    21476
    Quote Originally Posted by agalisgv View Post
    Thanks gkelly--great analysis.

    I did wonder if:

    LFO choctaw, LBO mohawk, RFO three, LFO three to 4T
    and
    LBO three, LFI mohawk (? camera angle changes), step out and back (mohawks? choctaws?) to right, step forward to left, LFO three to 4T+2T

    Would they really be considered intricate, or just unique?
    I'd say by the standard of entering into a triple flip, for example, they would be just average transitions, but by quad standards I'll count them as intricate.

    Look at the way most guys go into quads. E.g., Takahashi gliding straight forward on two feet before making the final turn. That's typical.

  19. #39
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    19,212
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    44320
    Many thanks, gkelly!
    "The team doesn't get automatic capacity because management is mad" -- Greg Smith, agile guy

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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