Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 192
  1. #101
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    In my bedroom flipping the light on/off
    Posts
    916
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    What I liked most about Gold's LP was how free she was. Her presentation is quite generic, but dang, she committed to it. I was more blown away by her finer attention to details, I mean you could tell she was on and was going to hit her jumps. I thought she presented a nice program. And she moves well, has a beautiful Clairol perfect smile and complexion. I *think* I am a fan now, and not just because she posts 3/3/3s to her YT. I was impressed with what she put down, and I'm not even referring to the jumps, since Lipnitskaia does these things in her SLEEP. I saw a real skater, a real competitor. I would hold off on the hype machine, since that doesn't get anyone anywhere anytime unless your last name is Lipinski. Lay low, do more programs like that.

  2. #102
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,520
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Forrest View Post
    What I liked most about Gold's LP was how free she was. Her presentation is quite generic, but dang, she committed to it. I was more blown away by her finer attention to details, I mean you could tell she was on and was going to hit her jumps. I thought she presented a nice program. And she moves well, has a beautiful Clairol perfect smile and complexion. I *think* I am a fan now, and not just because she posts 3/3/3s to her YT. I was impressed with what she put down, and I'm not even referring to the jumps, since Lipnitskaia does these things in her SLEEP. I saw a real skater, a real competitor. I would hold off on the hype machine, since that doesn't get anyone anywhere anytime unless your last name is Lipinski. Lay low, do more programs like that.
    I don't know if you have caught any of Lipnitskaia this season. She has grown a bit (or something). She doesn't look like she can do the jumps asleep anymore.

  3. #103

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,093
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1664
    Haven't read the article or this thread, just the title, and in response to that I have to say:

    Gracie Gold (aka G.G.), ROCK STAR, 'nuff said.

  4. #104
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    612
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I'm a real big fan of Gracie but I'd more like to think of her as "deserving to be there" with Ashley. I wouldn't be so impressed had Ashley said that but it seems even worse from Gold. Slap on the wrist for you GG!

  5. #105
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,520
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by cbd1235 View Post
    I'm a real big fan of Gracie but I'd more like to think of her as "deserving to be there" with Ashley. I wouldn't be so impressed had Ashley said that but it seems even worse from Gold. Slap on the wrist for you GG!
    The international judges will have something to say about Gold, unless everyone skates so wretchedly that Hernando's Hideaway wins by default. I am hopeful about Gracie's potential, but nobody internationally will endorse such swagger based on those programs.

  6. #106
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Sochi voids
    Age
    25
    Posts
    2,137
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by caseyedwards View Post
    COP is really not indecipherable. It's just points for everything. What's hard about that?
    In all fairness, we're basically the "seasoned insiders" that Brennan is referring to, as well as skaters, judges, coaches etc. The general public really has no idea how many points are allotted to what. The 6.0 system was basic. IJS isn't.

  7. #107

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,893
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    90270
    Quote Originally Posted by IceJunkie View Post
    In all fairness, we're basically the "seasoned insiders" that Brennan is referring to, as well as skaters, judges, coaches etc. The general public really has no idea how many points are allotted to what. The 6.0 system was basic. IJS isn't.
    I disagree. I think the general public has a much easier time with COP (not that I have done any scientific research into the matter ) It is, IMHO, some seasoned insiders, who actually understood 6.0 that pine for the old days.
    A good rant is cathartic. Ranting is what keeps me sane. They always come from a different place. Take the prime minister, for example. Sometimes when I rant about him, I am angry; other times, I am just severely annoyed - it's an important distinction. - Rick Mercer

  8. #108

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    I Want to Go to There
    Posts
    9,863
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    40900
    Quote Originally Posted by mag View Post
    I disagree. I think the general public has a much easier time with COP (not that I have done any scientific research into the matter ) It is, IMHO, some seasoned insiders, who actually understood 6.0 that pine for the old days.
    COP is easier to understand, but the general viewer wouldn't know that with NBC not explaining basics about the it. How hard is it for them to give a base value for each skater in the Kiss n Cry before the audience can see what the TES actually becomes. They also don't show a break down of the PCS of the skater, so it just looks like it's a random number added to TES.

    I think people would have a much easier time with COP if simple things like that were explained. It'd be even better if once they saw say Mirai's score, that the audience have it explained just how costly underrorations and downgrades are (like a triple Lutz going from 6.0 base score to almost half that or in terms of a downgrade even less). Or how about during a spin, just explain how a skater is trying to achieve a level 4 by talking about each position of the spin (or edge change) as a leveling up feature (this would also help explain why all the female skaters are doing the same exact layback spin and a layback is an easy spin to show the leveling up).

    It's not enough to have Tracy mildly explaining it in the beginning. It needs to be explained (and not by Scott and Sandra who are practically useless in that regard) just how those scores are really added up throughout the broadcast. Maybe NBC prefers that viewers are left in the dark because disputing marks and results is part of the fun, but as you can see on this forum, people still find ways to pick a fight about the score (i.e. Patrick Chan). Plus, having information gives people a feeling that they really know what they're talking about before they complain about a result.

    The audience didn't really get 6.0, but at least it was a basic understanding that the judges thought the tech score ranged from 5.7-5.9 and the "artistic mark" (presentation but that was never explained nor was what the judges were looking for in that mark) represented how convincing the judges thought the skater was in presenting his/her routine. In a way, it sort of shows the spirit of skating...trying to quantify something that's you can't really define by numbers.

    BTW, based on personal experience (so this is not quite the scientific method), but every time I watch a skating event with non-fans who I somehow convince to watch with me, they all want 6.0 back. Even after I try my hardest to explain why a skater got the score they did, they simply didn't like it because they thought it was too complicated (they also think the routines look too busy and the spins have become contorted). I think it was their way of saying that skating became too by-the-numbers. Of course, there's always a routine in which shuts them up and they say "I really liked that." (last time this happened was during Abbott's Muse LP).
    Last edited by VIETgrlTerifa; 01-29-2013 at 05:41 AM.

  9. #109
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,831
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Forrest View Post
    And frankly, can you even IMAGINE Kwan even coming close to Level 3's for ANYTHING? She had the princess package, was conservative and never said a thing controversial. She would never be competititve. And I admire her, but let's be real, it's a new sport. Kwan would maybe place 14th at worlds with her skill set if she was transplanted to today. She wasn't a goddess of skating, just the goddess of sponsors and Christine Brennan's (I still think something is UP with Brennan. Girl ain't right.)
    So would Tara Lipinski and Sarah Hughes, the two US Olympic Gold Medalists.

    And three time Olympic Gold Medalist Sonja Henie would come in last.

    Actually I think Kwan in her prime would be competitive under COP. I don't think her career would have lasted as long, but I do think her 1996-2001 (especially 1996-1998) self would be a podium threat.

  10. #110
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,061
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Forrest View Post
    And frankly, can you even IMAGINE Kwan even coming close to Level 3's for ANYTHING? She had the princess package, was conservative and never said a thing controversial. She would never be competititve. And I admire her, but let's be real, it's a new sport. Kwan would maybe place 14th at worlds with her skill set if she was transplanted to today. She wasn't a goddess of skating, just the goddess of sponsors and Christine Brennan's (I still think something is UP with Brennan. Girl ain't right.)
    You've got to be kidding me! Where would your new fave Gracie have placed under 6.0 after that horrid short? She may have moved up to 6th or 7th..... Under 6.0, Short program was do or die, you had to skate clean, now that's pressure! Not like the b.s. movement you see in placements under COP. It's beyond ridiculous....

  11. #111
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    11,016
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Not like the b.s. movement you see in placements under COP. It's beyond ridiculous....
    Rather than ridiculous I think it makes a heck of a lot more sense. You get points for what you do. How you did in the short program shouldn't effect the scores you get for what you do in the long program, but of course it effects your final placement. Gracie lost this national championship because of her short program, she won the silver because of her long.

    Max Aaron would have had no shot under 6.0 because he skated first in the short. WTH kind of system is that that holds early skaters down just in case something good is coming up later?

  12. #112
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,061
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    WTH kind of system is that that holds early skaters down just in case something good is coming up later?
    and that didn't happen at this year's Nationals?!

  13. #113
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,667
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Last week, I told my mother the National figure skating championship was taking place.

    ................ She asked me if Nancy Kwan was skating.

  14. #114
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    In my bedroom flipping the light on/off
    Posts
    916
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    And Gracie Gold is NOT my new fave. I was literally shaking my head over Zhang, Nagasu, and Gao scores. Plus shaking my head negatively over Agnes scores.

    It was Wagner/Gold before the week started. How convenient it all turned out like that. At least COP offers objectivity, right?

  15. #115
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    773
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Forrest View Post
    And frankly, can you even IMAGINE Kwan even coming close to Level 3's for ANYTHING? She had the princess package, was conservative and never said a thing controversial. She would never be competititve. And I admire her, but let's be real, it's a new sport. Kwan would maybe place 14th at worlds with her skill set if she was transplanted to today. She wasn't a goddess of skating, just the goddess of sponsors and Christine Brennan's (I still think something is UP with Brennan. Girl ain't right.)
    O_O

    I don't even know where to start with this post.
    Next you'll judge Sonia Henie or Katarina Witt by 2013 COP standards.

    First of all, we'll never truly know how a certain past skater would've performed in this or that era - it's all just wild speculation. Even the way a skater is trained from the beginning starting at ages 6, 7 is vastly different now than from the 80's.

    And for your information, COP can be easily gamed to a skater's advantage if you do your research, and you DON'T need to be a flexible gumby to get level 3 spins, as some skaters in this current era have shown. At the very end of Kwan's career in 2006 (when she was extremely injured), she did a test skate for the Olympic callers and they were telling her what to do to level up. They clearly all acknowledged that in the end she was able to reach level 3's and 4's on her elements, including her spins and spirals. We have had countless topics on FSU about how to get high levels for spins even without extreme-flexibility, with or without Biellmans, etc. It seemed as if Kwan was in denial about COP rather than anything else.

    Her footwork was always among the best of the ladies FOR HER TIME, and even during the 2005 world championships where she placed off the podium for the first time in a decade her footwork was given the same level (level 2) as Sasha, Irina or any of the top contenders at the time. It would not be a stretch to assume that had she been born into the COP era she would've managed level 3 footwork, or that she was capable of level 3 footwork had she not been injured.

    Whine whine whine all you want about Kwan's "empty programs", "subpar elements" and being "propped up" but from a purely technical standpoint she fairly won most of her medals under 6.0 (even if a few results were questionable as with any skater). Let's not forget a few years ago our freaking US ladies champion landed only 4 clean triples in her winning LP. You win some you lose some.
    Last edited by iarispiralllyof; 01-29-2013 at 07:11 PM.

  16. #116
    Corgi Wrangler
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Not Wearing Enough Sparkles
    Posts
    6,456
    vCash
    510
    Rep Power
    5546
    Yikes. I didn't find Gold all that much more exciting than the others, and reading that comment...put a cork in it, honey, if you want people to LIKE you. How rude. The ladies were not exactly riveting in general and she didn't do anything that warranted a comment about the other medalists (especially one who placed above her.)

    That was really my takeaway from watching Ladies, besides "Will someone please explain what Mirai did to get slammed THAT hard?" If her URs were that bad, okay, but you'd have no idea from listening to the commentary. Men's was a lot more interesting and ironically I saw a lot more skating TO the music, as opposed to wandering around trying to look graceful while some sort of twinkly quasi-classical music played in the background.

  17. #117
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    19,208
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    43906
    I watched the entire gymnastics coverage on Canadian TV, and Kyle Shewfelt spoke about relative difficulty constantly: ("He just doesn't have the same technical difficulty, and it will be very difficult to catch gymnast X.") When Arthur Zanetti beat Chen Yibing on rings, he spoke about the relative difficulty and the creativity in Zanetti's routine, even though I got the impression that he preferred Chen. There was a side-by-side clip of the two doing their routines which helped to clarify his points, one of the rare times this was used, but he had prepared his audience before that. He was able to explain why a major flaw on the final element of one of the Chinese women's trampoline gymnasts did not disqualify her for a medal -- she knocked a second Canadian woman off the podium -- and how the Chinese gymnast's hang time compensated for the flaw. He did this while having a co-commentator who wasn't nearly as sharp.

    The commentators don't have to throw a lot of numbers around to make themselves clear: a discussion of relative difficulty, relative complexity, and relative quality can go a long way in explaining what is happening in the competition.

    It takes people like Shewfelt and PJ Kwong on BOLD, people who have a clue not only about the sport itself, but who knows what is important for an audience to hear at any given time.
    Last edited by kwanfan1818; 01-29-2013 at 08:55 PM.
    "The team doesn't get automatic capacity because management is mad" -- Greg Smith, agile guy

  18. #118

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Gwyneth Paltrow Fan Club headquarters
    Posts
    17,306
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    31302
    Quote Originally Posted by kwanfan1818 View Post
    [Shewfelt] was able to explain why a major flaw on the final element of one of the Chinese women's trampoline gymnasts did not disqualify her for a medal -- she knocked a second Canadian woman off the podium -- and how the Chinese gymnast's hang time compensated for the flaw. He did this while having a co-commentator who wasn't nearly as sharp.
    I see you were too polite to point out that the generally clueless co-commentator was ROD BLACK
    You should never write words with numbers. Unless you're seven. Or your name is Prince. - "Weird Al" Yankovic, "Word Crimes"

  19. #119
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    19,208
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    43906
    I couldn't remember if he was the clueless gymnastics co-commentator, or the diving commentator I couldn't hear over Blythe Hartley's squeal. (It's a good thing diving doesn't suffer much loss from the mute button.)

    It's the mark of a truly good commentator who can un-do the damage done by an uninformed co-host.
    "The team doesn't get automatic capacity because management is mad" -- Greg Smith, agile guy

  20. #120

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,472
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    21476
    Quote Originally Posted by kwanfan1818 View Post
    I watched the entire gymnastics coverage on Canadian TV, and Kyle Shewfelt spoke about relative difficulty constantly: ("He just doesn't have the same technical difficulty, and it will be very difficult to catch gymnast X.") When Arthur Zanetti beat Chen Yibing on rings, he spoke about the relative difficulty and the creativity in Zanetti's routine, even though I got the impression that he preferred Chen.
    Did they explain what the gymnasts were doing, specifically, that was difficult or not so difficult? Would viewers learn to recognize specific skills by watching to this coverage and listening to this commentary?

    Or was it more just explaining in general, relatively unbiased terms which gymnasts had skills that gave them more points without detailing what those skills were?

Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •