Patrick Chan's Score, Second by Second

[gkelly]

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.

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?

[Iceman]

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

[kwanfan1818]

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

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.

[Zemgirl]

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

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.

[leesaleesa]

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.

[jettasian]

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.

[jettasian]

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

[jettasian]

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?

[agalisgv]

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.

[agalisgv]

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).

[jjane45]

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!!

[YoenNL]

I love the way this paper explains a lot of concepts in judging!

[Judy]

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.

[gkelly]

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?

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

[overedge]

Since NOBODY has or will skate a perfect LP

I thought you were arguing that's what Chan does every time.

[agalisgv]

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?

[Vash01]

Gkelly,

Fantastic work! Thanks for all the details.

[gkelly]

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.

[kwanfan1818]

Many thanks, gkelly!