View Poll Results: Who should have been given bronze by judges for their skates in Nagano

Voters
157. You may not vote on this poll
  • Butyrskaya

    84 53.50%
  • Slutskaya

    53 33.76%
  • Chen

    64 40.76%
  • someone else

    29 18.47%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 86
  1. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    163
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by VIETgrlTerifa View Post
    I misunderstood your first post. I thought you were saying there was no judging system in the world in which an underrotated jump was cleaner than a two-footed one.
    You didn't misunderstand- the post in question contradicts itself throughout. It says that no system considers under-rotation worse, but then goes on to justify reasons for discrediting Lu's cheated jumps. I think the intended point, based on other posts, is that the system considered chested jumps as flawed, but that the judges chose to ignore them.

    Regardless, "slight" touch-downs were considered 2-footed, flawed and were not credited under 6.0; that's not really debatable. Thus, Maria's lutz and flip would not have been considered completed triple jumps.

    Underrotations, OTOH, weren't as cut and dry, as evidenced by all the discussion here and by the wide range of marks for Lu and similar instances, like many of Bonaly's free skates. The most likely scenario is that anything less than 1/2 turn cheat was considered a minor mistake, but that the jump was still counted albeit with less credit, similar to a hand down. Lu was probably given credit for all but the final triple toe (and triple flip), with maybe a few judges considering one of the lutzes as being lower quality. The toe, sal and loop were all fine under 6.0 - and I think the lutzes were, as well.

  2. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Kostner #1 Fan
    Posts
    436
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    My marks would have produced the same results

    Lipinski: 5.9/5.9
    Kwan: 5.8/5.9
    Chen: 5.6/5.8
    Butyr: 5.7/5.7
    Slutsk: 5.8/5.6

  3. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    22
    Posts
    12,996
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I am surprised Slutskaya has more votes than Chen. Even if some think Chen was gifted, Slutskaya should have been about 8th in the short program so how can she even be a valid consideration of people, even if some think her long was worthy of 3rd place. Maybe alot forget her short program performance in Nagano:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJKs2kaJlyc

    How on earth was she over people like Bonaly, Malinina, Liashenko, and even in contention for a medal:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qapvKT19J7U
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcnhYjmc-Cw
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFrzG9p_Xs0

    Chen`s short was kind of weak too but was still clean, and probably did do barely enough to keep her in contention for the bronze atleast. Although Bonaly and Malinina could easily be argued to have been over her in the short as well, especialy Bonaly. Malinina realistically probably didnt have the name to be placed above.

  4. #44
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    392
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Who are the people voting as other voting for. Were there are any other skaters who skated well enough for a medal in Nagano. I didnt see all the women. How did Gusermoli and ones like her skate. I didnt see her short or long but she was the reigning World medal winner but unable to come close to those medal again at the Games.

  5. #45
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Age
    32
    Posts
    2,003
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JJS5056 View Post
    Underrotations, OTOH, weren't as cut and dry, as evidenced by all the discussion here and by the wide range of marks for Lu and similar instances, like many of Bonaly's free skates. The most likely scenario is that anything less than 1/2 turn cheat was considered a minor mistake, but that the jump was still counted albeit with less credit, similar to a hand down. Lu was probably given credit for all but the final triple toe (and triple flip), with maybe a few judges considering one of the lutzes as being lower quality. The toe, sal and loop were all fine under 6.0 - and I think the lutzes were, as well.

    This thread is not about how the 1998 competition was handled by the judges and why but how one personally would have judged under the system in place (6.0), and I have already mentioned those rules in the SP that were actually quite harsh towards underrotation.

    If you seriously think that e.g. a lutz that was 1/3 turn short of rotation should get seen as a credited jump only of lesser quality (similar to a jump with a hand-down) then our discussion ends here because aparently we have a totally POV of what figure skating is about (IMO, every jump that was 1/8 or less underroated was fine but maybe of lesser quality than a fully rotated jump while 1/4 was already a serious mistake and more than that already close to getting no credit at all. Why do you think CoP considers triple jumps with 1/3 underrotation count as overrated doubles which get hardly any points? Because they suddenly decided that underrotations should be considered harshly? No, they always should have punished hardly but the rules were not enforced under 6.0 for reasons I have already mentioned several times).
    Last edited by David21; 07-19-2013 at 11:29 AM.

  6. #46
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    392
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Well the judges gave Chen the scores and the bronze so they must have felt she had more clean triples and less serious mistakes under 98 thinking than Maria, and that even if Irina had better jumping than both her artistry and short program were too bad for a medal. Judges are huge experts on skating and probably know more than all of us.

  7. #47
    Blergh
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    I Want to Go to There
    Posts
    9,353
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    17805
    Quote Originally Posted by David21 View Post
    This thread is not about how the 1998 competition was handled by the judges and why but how one personally would have judged under the system in place (6.0), and I have already mentioned those rules in the SP that were actually quite harsh towards underrotation.

    If you seriously think that e.g. a lutz that was 1/3 turn short of rotation should get seen as a credited jump only of lesser quality (similar to a jump with a hand-down) then our discussion ends here because aparently we have a totally POV of what figure skating is about (IMO, every jump that was 1/8 or less underroated was fine but maybe of lesser quality than a fully rotated jump while 1/4 was already a serious mistake and more than that already close to getting no credit at all. Why do you think CoP considers triple jumps with 1/3 underrotation count as overrated doubles which get hardly any points? Because they suddenly decided that underrotations should be considered harshly? No, they always should have punished hardly but the rules were not enforced under CoP for reasons I have already mentioned several times).
    Because Sarah Hughes won the gold medal and people were bitter about it, so the powers that be through IJS (at least from 2008-2010) tried to retroactively delegitimize her win for the benefit of another skater. Of course that lead to huge problems, so they scaled it back a bit after Vancouver. :p

    Anyway, the judges in Nagano were well-versed in the rules and probably know more about what was supposed to be rewarded and what wasn't in the LP as opposed to the SP than any poster here. And with that, the judges rewarded Chen the bronze medal with mid-5s all-across her technical merit mark (compare that to her SP tech marks which were lower). I'm sure all nine judges didn't just choose to ignore it or didn't see it. They probably made a good faith effort to judge Chen's performance according to the rules at the time (with some natural bias playing here and there).
    Last edited by VIETgrlTerifa; 07-19-2013 at 06:47 AM.

  8. #48
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,260
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Regardless, "slight" touch-downs were considered 2-footed, flawed and were not credited under 6.0; that's not really debatable. Thus, Maria's lutz and flip would not have been considered completed triple jumps.
    Actually it is debatable, because there were times at least some of the judges seemed willing to overlook the slight toe-scrape two foot. You are right the rulebook said they should only give credit for jumps landed on one foot, but once the ISU introduced the distinction between a two-footed landing and the slight two-foot for SP deductions, it kind of carried over into FS judging.

    Underrotations, OTOH, weren't as cut and dry, as evidenced by all the discussion here and by the wide range of marks for Lu and similar instances, like many of Bonaly's free skates. The most likely scenario is that anything less than 1/2 turn cheat was considered a minor mistake, but that the jump was still counted albeit with less credit, similar to a hand down.
    I think before the advent of instant replay for the tech specialists, it was too difficult to judges to be sure about quarter turn or less URs, especially if the jump was at the far end of the ice, especially if the skater had decent flow out of the jump. They surely would not have given credit for an obvious UR (which would start a lot less than 180, more like 90 degrees). When it comes to blades, the judges don't have as good a view as we usually get from the TV camera. So, they tended to give the skater the benefit of the doubt.

    I'm not sure you are right about a hand down. That makes it a jump not landed on 1 foot and I think it did cost the skater credit for the jump under 6.0. I remember Scott Hamilton making a big deal about one of Petrenko's jumps in Albertville (the SP 3Lz, maybe?) when he leaned way forward but did not put his hand down, like that made a huge difference.

  9. #49
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Age
    32
    Posts
    2,003
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by VIETgrlTerifa View Post
    Anyway, the judges in Nagano were well-versed in the rules and probably know more about what was supposed to be rewarded and what wasn't in the LP as opposed to the SP than any poster here.

    Useing that argument, we should stop any discussion about the judging because the judges are so much more trained and knowledgable than any poster here blah blah..personally, I'm not even believing that and this rather strange argument is not going to prevent me from discussing the judges marks.


    Quote Originally Posted by VIETgrlTerifa View Post
    And with that, the judges rewarded Chen the bronze medal with mid-5s all-across her technical merit mark (compare that to her SP tech marks which were lower). I'm sure all nine judges didn't just choose to ignore it or didn't see it. They probably made a good faith effort to judge Chen's performance according to the rules at the time (with some natural bias playing here and there).

    Then please give me a logical explaination why Chen's marks in the LP were so much better than in the SP even though she underrotated almost all triple jumps. Her marks in the LP were indeed quite consistant all with 5.5s and one 5.6 and one 5.7, and those are IMO about the marks she would have gotten for all different clean triple jumps except for the flip and no triple-triple combination. What really happened IMO was that the judges indeed noticed the badly ur'ed last triple toe (that was hard to miss) but they completely missed the ur'ed lutzes, loop and sal because otherwise those marks make no sense.

  10. #50
    Blergh
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    I Want to Go to There
    Posts
    9,353
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    17805
    Because you're making a procedural argument about what was credited and valued under the judging system in place in Nagano as if you're an authority on the issue. This is separate from a more substantive argument about whether Lu Chen should have received credit for her jumps from a personal standpoint or from an "ideal" standpoint. It'd be one thing if the judges were all over the place but the tech. marks were incredibly consistent.

    I argue all the time that the judges are wrong, but I can't say that they were wrong with the rules in place, only that the system on which they we're working with allowed them give such marks. (I.e. Klimova/Ponomarenko's under markings from 1986-1988 and the Duschenays over marking afterward).

    As to the point differential from the SP and LP... I guess subjective things like skate order and presentation played a role, but also the fact that SPs tended to be more harshly judged from a technical element analysis standpoint because that was the idea behind the SP. The LP shifted more weight to other things and Chen had more elements that she more or less completed in comparison to her competitors by the time she had skated and the judges took that into account as well.

  11. #51
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    22
    Posts
    12,996
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Chen's technical marks were very consistent. All 5.5 to 5.7 with mostly 5.5 and 5.6. It was Maria's who were all over the place, mostly 5.5s as well, but as low as a couple of 5.4s IIRC, and as high as a 5.8 from one judge who gave her a higher technical mark than clean 7 triple Michelle (although the judge had Kwan ahead overall 5.7, 5.9 to 5.8, 5.8). Obviously the two foot landings made Maria's technical harder to judge under 6.0 thinking than Chen's barely UR jumps. Two foot landings under 6.0 were a worse mistake period. Chen's 2nd mark was also very consistent, mostly all 5.8s with a couple 5.7s. Butyrskaya's 2nd mark was also all over the place, from several 5.5s to several 5.8s, which again isnt surprising given the well choreographed program but skated very tenatively and uneasily. Slutskaya's marks were also much more consistent, almost all 5.7s and 5.6s on both sets.

  12. #52
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    95
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Definitely Maria. I would score Butyrskaya 5.7 technical, 5.8 presentation. Chen 5.4 technical, 5.7 presentation. Slutskaya 5.8 technical, 5.6 presentation. I would credit Chen for 5 clean triples and 2 other decent attempts at triples and 2 clean triple lutzes. The quality of her jumps and spins are so poorer compared to others in the top 6 though she would still get a lower technical merit score. Her artistry was very good but nothing amazing by then, overrated as well by her reputation from years past.

  13. #53
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    95
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by berthesghost View Post
    Was it controversial in Russia or something? Because in the US it wasn't one bit controversial at all.
    Of course it wasnt in the U.S. Nobody in the U.S cared who won the bronze once Bobek and the overhyped never going to happen U.S sweep was off the cards.

  14. #54
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Age
    32
    Posts
    2,003
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by VIETgrlTerifa View Post
    Because you're making a procedural argument about what was credited and valued under the judging system in place in Nagano as if you're an authority on the issue.

    I'm only posting my opinion about the judging based on what I read in the rule book. I'm not claiming to be more of an authority than other human being.


    Quote Originally Posted by VIETgrlTerifa View Post
    This is separate from a more substantive argument about whether Lu Chen should have received credit for her jumps from a personal standpoint or from an "ideal" standpoint. It'd be one thing if the judges were all over the place but the tech. marks were incredibly consistent.

    The judges missed underrotations in the past before lots of times...see Sarah Hughes or Kwan's flip in SLC...the fact that the different judges gave similar marks to Chen's LP in Nagano tells us absolutely nothing so this is not an argument.

  15. #55
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    95
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    The bronze to Chen I always felt was a make up gift for other times they robbed her in her career, especialy the 96 Worlds. The big loser though was Maria who was robbed of a bronze medal for the 3rd straight major event of her career- 96 Worlds, 97 Worlds, and 98 Olympics. She was robbed so often one could say she was a bank. Even with the robbing though she would have won the bronze at each of those 3 events with just one less mistake, so the was screwed by the judges and by herself 3 times in a row. Such an unlucky skater.

  16. #56
    Blergh
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    I Want to Go to There
    Posts
    9,353
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    17805
    Quote Originally Posted by David21 View Post
    I'm only posting my opinion about the judging based on what I read in the rule book. I'm not claiming to be more of an authority than other human being.





    The judges missed underrotations in the past before lots of times...see Sarah Hughes or Kwan's flip in SLC...the fact that the different judges gave similar marks to Chen's LP in Nagano tells us absolutely nothing so this is not an argument.
    You're the one who made the first initial statement about no scoring system existing that valued URs over two-foots when it may not have been the case. Also, a consensus shows us that no matter where they ultimately ranked Chen, the judges all agreed where her tech marks belonged. If the scoring system truly deducted for URs the way you said they did, then you'd see much more disparity between the judges because I can't believe all 9 judges ignored or didn't see her URs.

  17. #57
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Age
    32
    Posts
    2,003
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by VIETgrlTerifa View Post
    You're the one who made the first initial statement about no scoring system existing that valued URs over two-foots when it may not have been the case. Also, a consensus shows us that no matter where they ultimately ranked Chen, the judges all agreed where her tech marks belonged. If the scoring system truly deducted for URs the way you said they did, then you'd see much more disparity between the judges because I can't believe all 9 judges ignored or didn't see her URs.

    In this thread I already quoted the rule book for the deductions for underrotation in the SP so I think this should be proof enough. Of course if you want to negate what is written in the rule book then you are free to do so.

  18. #58
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    163
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Susan M View Post
    Actually it is debatable, because there were times at least some of the judges seemed willing to overlook the slight toe-scrape two foot. You are right the rulebook said they should only give credit for jumps landed on one foot, but once the ISU introduced the distinction between a two-footed landing and the slight two-foot for SP deductions, it kind of carried over into FS judging.



    I think before the advent of instant replay for the tech specialists, it was too difficult to judges to be sure about quarter turn or less URs, especially if the jump was at the far end of the ice, especially if the skater had decent flow out of the jump. They surely would not have given credit for an obvious UR (which would start a lot less than 180, more like 90 degrees). When it comes to blades, the judges don't have as good a view as we usually get from the TV camera. So, they tended to give the skater the benefit of the doubt.

    I'm not sure you are right about a hand down. That makes it a jump not landed on 1 foot and I think it did cost the skater credit for the jump under 6.0. I remember Scott Hamilton making a big deal about one of Petrenko's jumps in Albertville (the SP 3Lz, maybe?) when he leaned way forward but did not put his hand down, like that made a huge difference.
    A hand down definitely did not negate a jump 6.0 in the long program; hand down, three turn(s) on landing and a touch-down of the free foot (after landing the jump...more of a loss of balance) were all considered minor flaws (~.1 in the SP) and skaters still received credit for completing the jump.

    You are right in that 1/2 turn was probably an exaggeration. My point still stands that in the free program, only severe underrotations would ever be questioned in terms of credit. (The following is directed more toward David21) The rules for the short program are irrelevant; there was a deduction in the short for a flutz, as well, but that doesn't mean that flutzes were not considered completed triple jumps in the free. The two prorams were judged completely different- the SP was deduction-based, while in the free/long, elements were additive; in the SP, a two-footed jump was treated differently from a fall (~.2 vs. ~.4), while they were treated the same in the long (with neither counting toward the technical mark).

  19. #59
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Age
    32
    Posts
    2,003
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JJS5056 View Post
    A hand down definitely did not negate a jump 6.0 in the long program; hand down, three turn(s) on landing and a touch-down of the free foot (after landing the jump...more of a loss of balance) were all considered minor flaws (~.1 in the SP) and skaters still received credit for completing the jump.

    Skaters did receive PARTIAL credit for a jump with a hand-down or 3-turn in the LP, yes.


    Quote Originally Posted by JJS5056 View Post
    You are right in that 1/2 turn was probably an exaggeration. My point still stands that in the free program, only severe underrotations would ever be questioned in terms of credit. (The following is directed more toward David21) The rules for the short program are irrelevant; there was a deduction in the short for a flutz, as well, but that doesn't mean that flutzes were not considered completed triple jumps in the free. The two prorams were judged completely different- the SP was deduction-based, while in the free/long, elements were additive; in the SP, a two-footed jump was treated differently from a fall (~.2 vs. ~.4), while they were treated the same in the long (with neither counting toward the technical mark).

    If underrotation in SP is worthy of a heavy deduction, then it would belogical to assume that underrotated jumps in the LP would also at least get only partial credit as well. Of course it always depends on the extent of the underrotation. This is no different from e.g. a flutz. Of course different judges interpret rules differently so they might not deduct as harshly as I would do for flutzing or underrotation. But in some way, flutzing and underrotation are similar because in both cases some mistakes from the skaters would not be noticed by the judges because otherwise some marks (especially in the SPs) could not be explained.

    But why not stick to the competition discussed here: My initial point in this thread was that it is ridiculous to assume that Maria's lutz and flip were "badly two-footed" (when in fact they might not even had a touch down of the free leg) while Chen supposedly landed 5 clean triple jumps (when in fact all of them except 1 were underrotated and some of them by more than 1/4). I'm sorry but a lutz that is lacking more than 1/4 rotation is not a clean jump and should not get full credit in the LP.
    And a 2.75 triple salchow should not get that, either.

  20. #60
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    161
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    If judges took URs that seriously then Hughes whose 2002 Olympic LP jumps were much worse and more badly underrotated than Chen's in 98 (apart from one) wouldnt have even medaled in SLC, let alone won. I still dont think Chen deserved the bronze in Nagano over Butyrskaya or even Slutskaya since the quality of her jumps, spins, and overall technical skating were inferior to others at the very top by then even when she made less mistakes and landed more, and I think even her artistry was exagerrated by that point, but I do think the judges were correct in crediting her for 5 clean triples.

    Some of you are forgetting it wasnt COP in 1998. As for strict rules who cares, most judges didnt follow 95% of the written code ever anyway. There were generally accepted rules and that was it. A jumps underrotated by a tenth or even quarter of a rotation being discredited was never one of those.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •