*quietly freaks out about the blade-breaking ones and hangs onto her own skates*
Just what every mother envisions for her daughter . . . Crackwhore on Ice!
Another random question: are Victor Voronov and Sergei Voronov related?
Voronov is Russian for "Zhang."
OK, so this is not a question at all. I just don't need to start a new thread for this. But it's CRAZY.
Check out the current standings of the USFSA Fantasy Skating contest.
Over the past few months, the administrator went on and off allowing the #n*pples name on the graphic because that entrant was always in the top 10. Then suddenly this new name?! It had to been created at the same time, before the whole contest began and we could even see the names, because of the points accumulated.
You know it's just Hanyu and Kozuka down the hall from each other at the dorm making fun of this whole predictive game as it is.
Having followed the #n*pples saga (I know the player who it is), I'm glad someone did that. The USFSA weren't even polite when she asked why she wasn't on the graphic the first week she made top ten.
I think I crashed and burned at Euros and probably at Nationals as well. Is it going to be open for JW, 4CC and SW? Maybe I can recover some points. I kept losing out because I kept picking my favourite skaters over ones that might do well. Picking Artur every time in the GP series hurt me a fair bit But I've never been good at these things.
We hear about the high end designers, Vera Wang for example, designing for skaters. But who are the best designers who create only for skaters?
Just a completely random one: Does anyone remember any LPs that the very first element is not a jump?
Jonathan Cassar's Schindler's List free skate also started with the step sequence as the first element.
I also vaguely remember some women's programs starting with a spin, but I can't remember the skaters who had them.
After the opening moves, the first element of Tara Lipinski's 1997-8 FS was a layback spin.
With all the controversy involving scoring in recent years, I've been wondering whether anyone has ever calculated the total scores B&S and S&P would have been awarded--using the current system rather than the 6.0 system--for their respective performances at the 2002 SLC Games? (I would think that, ironically, B&S would still have come out ahead, but who knows?) Apologies if this subject has already been discussed. Just wondering.
We can only speculate what GOEs and PCS the actual judges on the panel would have given, and the level rules have changed many times so the scores would depend on those as well. However, S&P would've been at an automatic disadvantage after their double fall at the end of the SP (if we used a version of IJS that had that deduction, which came along pretty early on). In 6.0 it didn't matter much at all because it wasn't on an elements and they were in the top 3. I suspect the free skate would've been very close but the SP might have cost S&P.
It's impossible to know what they "would" have received, because a lot of the scores -- GOEs and PCS -- are at each judge's discretion. We can say what marks we would have given for each component and each element, but not what an actual Olympic judging panel would have given.
As for the base values of the elements, it would depend which year's rules you were using and how you (acting as the post facto tech panel) decided to handle any elements that didn't easily fit the rules. So if someone calculated them with 2006 rules, the numbers could be very different from those calculated with 2013 rules.
I think we have had a couple of threads on the topic. I know I tried judging and calling for myself once just out of curiosity. According to my own personal scores with ca. 2006 element rules, I came up with B&S far ahead in the short program and a tiny bit behind in the long, which would have given them the win by IJS rules.