Page 7 of 28 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 542
  1. #121

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    185
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayar View Post
    Huh? Christine is a fantastic writer-- if she weren't, she wouldn't have the job that she has, and she wouldn't have the respect within the industry that she does (and she does-- I've seen it firsthand). If you don't like what she writes, that's fine, but she is definitely skilled at her craft. What Christine is bringing to light is that the average person who might have been watching the Latvian feed (ha!) would not understand why Chan won over Ten. Skating fans might get it, but the average viewer does not. And honestly, there are enough SKATERS who are complaining about that specific result that I tend to think that there might be some merit to it.
    True

  2. #122
    Watch me move
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Gwyneth Paltrow Fan Club headquarters
    Posts
    16,731
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I don't think they're too difficult, although I sometimes have to ask Mr. Overedge to explain some of the more uncommon notations.

    I also don't think they're necessary to appreciate the game. One of the things I like about watching the game is watching the strategy of the plays unfold, which the box scores don't really capture. But just like the protocol sheets in skating, the information in the box scores is a good way to understand how the final score came about.
    Who wants to watch rich people eat pizza? They must have loved that in Bangladesh. - Randy Newman on the 2014 Oscars broadcast

  3. #123
    AYS's snark-sponge
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    in the Bobrova & Soloviev Fan Clubhouse
    Posts
    41,575
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    15900
    Quote Originally Posted by overedge View Post
    I don't think they're too difficult, although I sometimes have to ask Mr. Overedge to explain some of the more uncommon notations.

    I also don't think they're necessary to appreciate the game. One of the things I like about watching the game is watching the strategy of the plays unfold, which the box scores don't really capture. But just like the protocol sheets in skating, the information in the box scores is a good way to understand how the final score came about.
    Yup.

    When I was a baseball fan, I was a box score fanatic. I loved all the stats and spent hours on it. I'll glance at skating protocols but don't spend a lot of time on it. If I wonder about something I ask AYS about it.

    I really don't think figure skating and baseball are all that different in that way.

    In other words, I think the claim that skating loses casual fans because the judging system is too hard to understand is bogus. There are other complaints that have merit regarding the judging system but that one I find not to have any.
    Congratulations 2014 World Ice Dance Champions Anna Cappellini & Luca Lanotte!!!

  4. #124
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    572
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by judiz View Post
    One of my best memories growing up was watching skating on a Sunday afternoon on Wide World of Sports with Jim McKay and Dick Button. I remember watching dance and pairs on Saturday afternoon and the ladies skating live Saturday night and then the men skating live on Sunday. As a kid I didn't care about the scores, I just watched the beautiful skating - Jill, Tiffany, Elaine, Debbie, Todd, Christopher, Scott, Mark, Paul and Brian - such lasting memories - a whole generation will never experience this.
    My memories go back a little further. I remember shoing ladies live yes, but there was a time when ABC only showed the top three men who medalled, and that was on tape delay. Sometimes they only showed the top two pairs, maybe all three if we were lucky and dance was almost an afterthought, like in 1988 when if memory serves me right, ABC didn't show any ice dancing competition at Nationals
    Until the boom caused by the whack, I think figure skating was perceived by the networks as entertainment, not a sport, so it wasn't taken seriously and got even less respect than it gets now. JMO.

  5. #125

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,373
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueRidge View Post
    I'm curious how many folks who are baseball fans here don't ever look at the box scores?
    I kind of have to read them because I can rarely watch actual games. I haven't really gotten into the more advanced metrics, though - and I suspect many of the fans who have don't really understand the limitations of using descriptive statistics as predictors. But that's unrelated to skating.

    Anyway, I like box scores and I like protocols. It's like knowing a fun language that gives you more information than you might have otherwise.

  6. #126
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    10,398
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    To some extent, while I think it is sad I watched World's in Latvian and Russian, I also think it is an embarassment of riches. I got to watch EVERY program of the event (if I wanted to- I missed a couple).

    I don't think that happened even in the hey-day. Did any network show every single skater? Live?

    The problem is that Universal Sports doesn't seem to think this is worth doing. I don't want to subscribe to their website- and apparently they don't think they can sell commercials. Next year I'll subscribe to IceNetwork because they have the rights for all the events.


    And personally, I LOVE reading protocols. The sport makes so much more sense. I never understood 6.0 and was just happy when the American won. But I wasn't 'into' the sport as a sport, because I didn't understand where points came from. Now I enjoy it as a sport.

  7. #127
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    On the run from cholla's vibrating cleavage
    Posts
    6,127
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    I am not sure exactly what you would accept as "evidence." There have been quite a few statistical studies of which countries have tended to vote in synch in different eras. But certainly (if my poor old memory serves ) in this case the pre-Olympic buzz was that "everybody knew" that there was a four-four division in the panel, with Hoffmann holding the swing vote.

    That is why all the attention afterword focused on Hoffmann's vote, even though he was only one of five who voted for Baiul.

    The same thing happened in the pairs event in Salt Lake City. It was well recognized going in that there were four B&S judges (Russia, China, Ukraine, and Poland) and four S&P judges (USA, Canada, Germany, and Japan). That put the spotlight on the French judge.
    That Chinese judges tend to give higher marks to the same skaters as, say, Russian judges doesn't imply there is any conspiracy or bloc.

  8. #128
    Bountifully Enmeshed
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    At the Christmas Bizarre
    Posts
    37,688
    vCash
    250
    Rep Power
    15218
    Quote Originally Posted by Mafke View Post
    The two big flaws for me are levels (I really, really, hate levels) and PCs which are almost half the score and don't make any sense to me.
    Did you understand Artistic Impression and/or Presentation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Entering the competition it was a foregone conclusion that regardless of the skating the four eastern bloc judges (Poland, China, Czech Republic, and Ukraine) would vote for Oksana, and the four western bloc judges (U.S.A., Canada, Great Britain , and Japan) would vote for Kerrigan.

    The only vote that was is doubt was Hoffmann's. Even though Hoffmann represented East Germany, he was known as a conscientious and independent judge who did not always toe the cold war line. So it really was Hoffmann's vote that decided the issue.
    And this was the system that the casual fans preferred?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    6.0 draws the audience in. CoP shuts them out.

    When you see a row of marks like 1211314 you know exactly what it means. It means the Slovakian judge thought my skater was best, the Chinese judge thought my skater was second best, and so on. Then you get the satisfaction of yelling at the TV, what is that Swedish judge smoking -- how dare he put my girl way down in fourth place!
    Um, not according to your post above. It means the Slovakian judge was in on the bloc and so was the Chinese judge and it didn't matter what the skaters actually did on the ice.

    But that was better for the casual fans?

    Quote Originally Posted by escaflowne9282 View Post
    Heh, not quite true. Marina Sania of RUS , and Vladislav Petschukov of UKR gave interviews on ABC during worlds that season explaining their ordinals. Jiasheng Yang of China gave a detailed interview on Chinese television doing the same thing during worlds that season. What's more is during the review meeting after the freeskate, Ron Pfenning reportedly started arguing with the judges he didn't agree with and demanded their explainations.
    And how many of the casual fans saw and understood all this? And what difference did any of it make in terms of the results?

    It may have been more fun to argue about 6.0--but that's because you could say ANYTHING with 6.0 and it might be valid (also true for the judges). Who knows why judge #3 placed skater X over skater Y? No one knew, so we could all argue our pet theories to death. But I fail to understand how that could possibly have been a better system for the casual fans. With COP, even the commentators can look right at the scores and say "Two jumps were downgraded" and show them in slo-mo and explain them. That may be boring, but less comprehensible?

    I think COP has resulted in some really boring and fugly programs. I can understand people thinking that that would drive the casual fans away. But the scoring?
    Trolling dates all the way back to 397 B.C. - People began following Plato around and would make fart noises after everything he said.

  9. #129

    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    In Canuck Land, hey!
    Age
    56
    Posts
    3,781
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I'm a fan of many sports, truth to tell. If there's a score of a game that I want to know, I look it up. Seldom do I want to look at the box score. However, I am inclined to read some articles about said game on a sports website -- especially box lacrosse.

    Of course, it helps to actually understand the game. Looking at boxscores/gamesheets of a sport only makes sense if you understand at least some of the basic rules and abbreviations used. And how does one get acquainted with such, one could ask? Well in my case, it usually involved listening to people during the broadcast of that sport. They explained rules in the context of the game, using examples to point out why one thing versus another. Not that my eye could always see, but at least I could understand it a bit better.

    Then, if I really wanted to know more about that sport, I'd probably start talking to people who are more knowledgeable about it. Getting their take on things, getting rules explained to me. I've even been known to crack open a rule book or two.

    So what's the point? If I'm just a casual observer of a sport, I'm not likely to understand it much if the people "covering" it can't be bothered to explain even some of the simple things to me. For instance, a number of years ago I was watching one of the Winter Olympic sports where they have to ski around and then shoot at targets. I noticed that some people seemed to be skiing in a circuit and had no idea what on earth that was about. Fortunately for me, the person doing the commentary explained that it was a place where shooters did a "penalty lap" when they missed a target. OK, that made sense to me so I continued to watch. They made this point most times a shooter missed. Because they took the time to explain something as simple as that, I felt like I better understood at least that sport and continued to watch it til the end. Would I have continued to watch it at that time? Maybe, but I would be puzzled as to why some skiers did that extra lap while others didn't.

    So why am I including this story? Because I feel that this is where the U.S. has done a big disservice to their figure skating fans. I've tried watching figure skating on U.S. channels and I find it mind boggling that they cannot or will not explain some of the simpler aspects of COP. It really isn't that difficult so the conclusion I've come to is one of two things
    1) the commentators are too lazy to learn
    2) they think their viewer are too stupid to understand
    I don't mean they have to know every single bullet for each and every level, but they could do something as simple as what PJ does. She gives a breakdown of what is a good/excellent/exceptional score. During the skating she and other Canadian commentators explain some of the things we've seen -- sometimes during the skate, other times when they show the replays. It's because of such that I've taken the time to at least become better acquainted with COP. Do I know as much as say Tracy or PJ? Nope! Probably not as much as some posters here but I do understand that the person with the highest score wins, I understand that levels are given for elements by the Tech committee and that the judges determine how well an element was done. I understand PCS to a lower degree but do know that there is information out there if I really want to get down to the nitty gritty of things. And you know what, it tends to be that way with any sport for which a person really wants to understand. Sometimes it takes a bit of patience, sometimes perseverance, and occasionally some time.

    With the 6.0 system I did try to understand the ordinals but I found it very confusing, especially when positions switched amongst skaters. I really didn't get flip flops -- confused the living daylights out of me.
    Crazy about sports!

  10. #130

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,373
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by equatorial View Post
    That Chinese judges tend to give higher marks to the same skaters as, say, Russian judges doesn't imply there is any conspiracy or bloc.
    I get the sense that much of what's attributed to bloc judging can also be understood as cultural preferences and what judges of different backgrounds look for in skating programs. That's not to say there isn't politikking - I'm not that naive - but I don't believe that's the sole explanation.

  11. #131

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Quadland
    Posts
    6,158
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1604
    But figure skating? It remains stuck in the past. That might not be a problem for a Games in Sochi and a Russian renaissance, but, long term, it will kill the sport.
    What does this even mean? Stuck in the past- games in sochi - Russian resaissance? But where is the success for Russia in the past years in IJS? Worlds 2013 had 2 medalists and Vancouver had 2 medalists. The system wont change to please Russia because IJS as it is now is good for Russia? No- it certainly is not!!

  12. #132
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    swimming across the Atlantic
    Posts
    1,194
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy
    1) That is fair because Gold and Li's skating skills, program construction and other abilities which make up the PCS were nowhere near as good as Kostner's for example (falls or no falls). If they want to win, they should work on improving those aspects and then they can challenge for the the gold.
    That's really a matter of opinion, because PCS is subjective. I think Kostner should learn to be consistent, Yuna should learn a triple loop, and Mao should learn a triple lutz if they want to keep the younger skaters at bay. Those are objective weaknesses, whereas vague PCS criteria like "effortlessness," "emotional involvement," "style," "clarity of movement," etc. are subjective.

    2) It's another example of memory reconstructing the past. Such results used to happen all the time under the old judging system. I cried all day after Gusmeroli was 4th at 2000 Europeans, having skating a beautiful and clean free program.
    I agree that 6.0 wasn't perfect, but the scoring was a lot less egregious overall than now. I would guess that those who placed above her in that competition did not fall three times and likely skated clean or close to clean as well. Under CoP, it is possible for a skater to fall three times and still win over a totally clean program because of PCS, which is what I disagree with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Asli
    You are assuming that the jump was fully rotated and didn't have any other deductions.
    It seems like a good chunk of falls don't get a UR call, but even if a fall gets a UR call, it isn't really a penalty for falling, because skaters that don't fall and seem to land their jumps cleanly still often get UR calls, so the UR calls apply equally to all skaters, fall or no fall.

    There is one aspect of the jumps that the 6.0 system hardly ever penalised: Underrotated jumps were usually considered successful if landed. Sarah Hughes won the olympic gold with a whole bunch of severely underrotated triples that would be called as doubles today. With the CoP underrotating jumps by more than half a rotation is a very costly mistake.
    This is true. I like the UR feature of CoP, although I think sometimes the UR calls are applied unevenly for borderline jumps.

  13. #133
    Beach Bum
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Maryland burbs and shore
    Posts
    12,988
    vCash
    583
    Rep Power
    5666
    This kind of reminds me of when they got rid of school figures. 1. so tedious to watch it was not TV friendly, 2. the general viewer didn't understand why the strongest free skater didn't win.
    I think I will have a snack and take a nap before I eat and go to sleep.

  14. #134
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    672
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    The articles mainly talk about the effect in the U.S., how the new scorubg systthm is n't winning fans over. Thecontinual over scoring hurts it or having a champ win twice by falling at,least twice,in each of programs. Under 6.0 falling twice you rarely won world or olypicx ezpecially if your nearedt main,competitor stood. Besides that is one reason the short program came in the 1973 to give free skaters achane to ein if skated clean because with just figure could win figures & screw up free &still win. Problem started wth,overscoring patrick in short.. Short program use to mean required elements and Mandatory deductions for not doing them properly. Now just points left on table nothissg really taken off .

  15. #135
    Beach Bum
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Maryland burbs and shore
    Posts
    12,988
    vCash
    583
    Rep Power
    5666
    Quote Originally Posted by professordeb View Post
    Because I feel that this is where the U.S. has done a big disservice to their figure skating fans. I've tried watching figure skating on U.S. channels and I find it mind boggling that they cannot or will not explain some of the simpler aspects of COP. It really isn't that difficult so the conclusion I've come to is one of two things
    1) the commentators are too lazy to learn
    2) they think their viewer are too stupid to understand
    I don't mean they have to know every single bullet for each and every level, but they could do something as simple as what PJ does. She gives a breakdown of what is a good/excellent/exceptional score.
    I saw some US broadcasts where they gave breakdowns of good/excellent/what can contend for a medal scores, but not recently. Who did that and why have they stopped? Some of the comentators mention the points for the big jumps or the bonus for jumps after the midpoint, but not to a great level of detail.
    I think I will have a snack and take a nap before I eat and go to sleep.

  16. #136
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,722
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueRidge View Post
    Do you think they are either too difficult to understand and/or unnecessary to appreciating the game?
    They never require me to multiply by a factor.

    Nor does the box score determine the outcome. The outcome is determined by what happens on the field. The box score merely reports it. This comparison is apples and orangutans.

  17. #137
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    10,398
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by PDilemma View Post
    The outcome is determined by what happens on the field.
    Wasn't there a big deal last year or so where an umpire called something wrong and it ruined some pitcher's perfect game? To the extent that the other team tried to get it corrected?

    This is a pretty fair comparison to figure skating; baseball also has subjective judging, and favorites can be 'held up' just the same. And depending on who you talk to- often are.

    So the outcome may be determined by what happens on the field, but there is a human element to calling 'what happens', so just like I may not understand why someone got +GOE and someone got -GOE and blame politics the same thing comes into play when I question why an umpire would call someone safe and someone else out. Is it politics or just a bad call? In skating, the fans always say politics, but chances are they are human and it may have been a bad call.

  18. #138
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,722
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    Wasn't there a big deal last year or so where an umpire called something wrong and it ruined some pitcher's perfect game? To the extent that the other team tried to get it corrected?

    This is a pretty fair comparison to figure skating; baseball also has subjective judging, and favorites can be 'held up' just the same. And depending on who you talk to- often are.

    So the outcome may be determined by what happens on the field, but there is a human element to calling 'what happens', so just like I may not understand why someone got +GOE and someone got -GOE and blame politics the same thing comes into play when I question why an umpire would call someone safe and someone else out. Is it politics or just a bad call? In skating, the fans always say politics, but chances are they are human and it may have been a bad call.
    But that call was considered a mistake. There was not a sheet full of algebra equations to explain why it was all correct. And in all the handwringing over the incident no one ever said "it makes perfect sense if fans weren't too lazy to read the box score".

    However, your point is irrelevant because the post I was responding to compared box scores to protocol sheets. Totally different things. The protocols determine the outcome in skating. The box score in baseball merely reports it.

  19. #139

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Walking to Work
    Posts
    25,653
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    17347
    How do you know she was?
    I've heard at least two commentators, Peter Carruthers and Susie Wynne, talk about it during 4CCs about nine years ago. IIRC, Dick and Peggy had something to say about Amber's cheated jumps as well. Her triple-triples were allegedly downgraded as well. Susie said something to the effect that this "always" hurts Amber.

  20. #140

    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    9,855
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4867
    Quote Originally Posted by iloveemoticons View Post
    That's really a matter of opinion, because PCS is subjective. I think Kostner should learn to be consistent, Yuna should learn a triple loop, and Mao should learn a triple lutz if they want to keep the younger skaters at bay. Those are objective weaknesses, whereas vague PCS criteria like "effortlessness," "emotional involvement," "style," "clarity of movement," etc. are subjective.
    There are a few subjective PCS criteria, but most of the criteria are objective. For instance, "effortlessness" as you say above - i.e. flow and effortless glide - is an objective criterion. Carolina Kostner gains speed with just one crossover and maintains the speed through the turns during intricate footwork, even generating speed during the turns. That is effortless flow. It is a technical achievement through the correct use of edges and not some abstract notion.
    Skaters who don't have the same level of skating skills need many crossovers to obtain he same speed and lose speed during footwork, needing toe pushes and extra srossovers or getting stuck in the ice. This is not a subjective criterion, just like most of the other criteria.

    IMO it is very important to reward good skating as well as good jumping, because this is, after all, a skating competition. Jumps have become an important aspect of figure skating, but should this mean that they are the one and only important aspect?
    Last edited by Asli; 03-18-2013 at 10:35 PM.

Page 7 of 28 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •