U.S. Ladies [#19]: Do You Know the Way to San Jose?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the US qualification criteria can be more explicitly spelt out, but otherwise I am FOR the body of work argument. Otherwise everyone would aim to only peak at Nationals instead of at the Olympics or Worlds, and would go for risks beyond their capability because "they would have nothing to lose". It is fairer to place reliance on skaters who have demonstrated performance over a recent period of time (i.e. not just one competition).

E.g. I think it would have been fairer for Ashley Wagner to have been sent to 2010 Olympics and Worlds instead of Mirai Nagasu given how their respective 09 and 10 seasons had played out up to Nationals.
 
Last edited:
Marco said:
I think the US qualification criteria can be more explicitly spelt out, but otherwise I am FOR the body of work argument. Otherwise everyone would aim to only peak at Nationals instead of at the Olympics or Worlds, and would go for risks beyond their capability because "they would have nothing to lose". It is fairer to place reliance on skaters who have demonstrated performance over a recent period of time (i.e. not just one competition).
Click to expand...

I'm also firmly in the "body of work" camp. And as to your last sentence, I'd add that it's fairer to place reliance on skaters who have demonstrated performance in international competition/with international judges. It's hardly a secret that US-only judging panels are usually smoking something different from what the international judges smoke. I make no apologies for my belief that when it comes to Olympics and Worlds, the USFS' primary responsibility is to put out athletes that can win medals, or at least maximize potential entrants the following year. Sometimes that means making hard decisions.

essence_of_soy said:
How would Mirai have done in Sochi?
Click to expand...

IMO, not as well as the three ladies that went. Polina, the lowest scorer, was still well above Mirai's international best that season. Mirai's head just didn't seem to be completely in the game at that time. I think USFS made the correct decision in sending Ashley in 2014--and I thought so at the time they made it even when they caught all sorts of flak. But flak is what you get to catch when you're in a decision-making capacity, comes with the territory.
 
I also agree with choosing teams based on body of work. USFS's goal should be to send the strongest/best team possible. The best indicator of this would be those who have performed most consistently over a period time, most importantly at international competition, as noted above US judging & international judging are not consistent. Also, anyone can have one really good/bad day for whatever reason. This is not necessarily an indication of how they will perform in the future.
 
Applying the 'body of work' principle over the latest result sometimes bites organisations in the behind.

Case in point, when Canada's Liam Firus was pressured into stepping aside for Nam Nguyen at the 2016 World Championships.

Firus had earned his position fair and square, but Nam, who really under-performed the entire season (but was fifth in the world in 2015), was sent in his place.

Nam did not even make it out of qualifying in Boston.

I guess I am all about seeing skaters really perform balls to the wall, and do it when it absolutely matters. Nationals, as Dick Button used to say, was the highest pressure event of the season.

It sort of defeats the purpose of having nationals at all. Why not simply bring in the likes of Marta Karoli to choose instead?
 
essence_of_soy said:
Applying the 'body of work' principle over the latest result sometimes bites organisations in the behind.

Case in point, when Canada's Liam Firus was pressured into stepping aside for Nam Nguyen at the 2016 World Championships.

Firus had earned his position fair and square, but Nam, who really under-performed the entire season (but was fifth in the world in 2015), was sent in his place.

Nam did not even make it out of qualifying in Boston.

I guess I am all about seeing skaters really perform balls to the wall, and do it when it absolutely matters. Nationals, as Dick Button used to say, was the highest pressure event of the season.

It sort of defeats the purpose of having nationals at all. Why not simply bring in the likes of Marta Karoli to choose instead?
Click to expand...
Liam withdrew (probably under pressure). There was no body of work applied in the 2016 case. We'll never know what happened.
 
Yeah, let's not jump to conclusions about 2016 Canadians. And there's no guarantee Firus would have done any better. Plus, associations won't always get it right. Overall, I do prefer the body of work over just Nationals. Overall consistency is more important than putting it together for one competition. Some skaters produce at Nationals year in and year out but are very inconsistent the rest of the season. I don't blame a Figure skating association for not being convinced when that happens.

Mirai will need to be consistent. She can do it. I think she got a wake up call from 2014.
 
essence_of_soy said:
Applying the 'body of work' principle over the latest result sometimes bites organisations in the behind.
<snip>
It sort of defeats the purpose of having nationals at all. Why not simply bring in the likes of Marta Karoli to choose instead?
Click to expand...

Yes, applying this principle can come back to bite organisations in the butt. But so can going by the results of just one competition.

I must disagree with the assertion that choosing by body of work defeats the purpose of having Nationals. Winning a National title in the USA is, in and of itself, a great achievement that stands on its own merits.

The analogy of Marta Karolyi is not particularly apt, as the structure of Worlds/Olympic gymnastic competition requires that a team of both all-arounds and specialists be strategically put together, not just the top finishers in all-around.
 
jiejie said:
Yes, applying this principle can come back to bite organisations in the butt. But so can going by the results of just one competition.

I must disagree with the assertion that choosing by body of work defeats the purpose of having Nationals. Winning a National title in the USA is, in and of itself, a great achievement that stands on its own merits.

The analogy of Marta Karolyi is not particularly apt, as the structure of Worlds/Olympic gymnastic competition requires that a team of both all-arounds and specialists be strategically put together, not just the top finishers in all-around.
Click to expand...

With the likes of Zaigitova on the scene and the love she is getting right off the bat, I'm just sad the U.S. ladies are kind of long shots for an individual medal in Korea.
 
essence_of_soy said:
With the likes of Zaigitova on the scene and the love she is getting right off the bat, I'm just sad the U.S. ladies are kind of long shots for an individual medal in Korea.
Click to expand...

Someone on FSU (I'm sorry I can't remember who it was) pointed out that at least one of the medal favorites often falters, leaving a chance for someone unexpected to make the podium. It would be a reach for a US lady, but not impossible if someone underperforms. We also don't know how Zaigitova will do or if she'll even be at the Olympics. So there are many factors still undetermined. :)

Honestly, I just want the US women to 1. have their team selected without controversy and 2. perform to their best ability at the Olympics. I love our current US skaters, but at this point hoping for medals is somewhat unrealistic. If it happens, it'll be a great surprise instead.
 
Sasha'sSpins said:
Bradie Tennell may be a strong contender too, the way she's been skating so far.
Click to expand...
You had better believe it! Bradie would be an obvious choice if she can maintain and carry her Senior B success and momentum into the official Olympic season. Foolish to leave such a consistent and talented skater at home.
 
Last edited:
kwanfan1818 said:
If USFS does not change its mind and does use the last Worlds criteria for the Olympic team selection, Challenger Series events are not considered part of the "body of work".
Click to expand...

Challenger Series was included in the last Worlds criteria. It's part of Tier 3.

I think a strong argument can be made for taking the skaters who have caught lightning in a bottle. Upsets don't happen that often at nationals, and when they do, and when those skaters have been chosen for the big assignments, they have tended to compete well at those worlds/Olympics: e.g., Galindo in '96, Evora/Ladwig in '10, Nagasu in '10, Brown in '14, Edmunds in '14. There's something to be said for taking who is hot.
 
Since people brought Marta Karyoli into the equation, I just want to reiterate that US gymnasts hardly ever compete in front of international panels except for American Cup (which people call SCAM Cup for a reason), Marta doesn't really care about past results so much as what a gymnasts' potential is now. That's why Marta hated naming a team too early and wanted to wait until the practices of Worlds to determine which of the pool of gymnasts would be team members and which would be alternates, which she was not allowed to do for the Olympics. The US selection Camp, with Marta being the head, do all sorts of analysis about team make up (US Gym has always been about what's best for the team event and then they think about individual medals...if they could sacrifice a gymnast who would score better for a team with another one who may win a world title on an individual while still being able to win team gold), and ideally if they end up with a team with lots of new gymnasts with little experience they can have one or two members with more experience to lead the team.

It also took her 11-12 years and a lot of mistakes, more death camps than needed resulting in broken gymnasts (physically, emotionally, and mentally), much less international competition to challenge the U.S. to get the formula right. Oftentimes, Marta sort of got lucky because the U.S. has a depth of gymnasts where gymnasts could be replaced if they broke, not unlike what Russia has with ladies skaters at the moment.
 
her grace said:
Challenger Series was included in the last Worlds criteria. It's part of Tier 3.
Click to expand...
:duh: for my lack of reading comprehension.

her grace said:
I think a strong argument can be made for taking the skaters who have caught lightning in a bottle. Upsets don't happen that often at nationals, and when they do, and when those skaters have been chosen for the big assignments, they have tended to compete well at those worlds/Olympics: e.g., Galindo in '96, Evora/Ladwig in '10, Nagasu in '10, Brown in '14, Edmunds in '14. There's something to be said for taking who is hot.
Click to expand...
Galindo had been repeatedly lowballed by USFS and eligible US champions were guaranteed spots for Worlds. While because of TV money they couldn't officially grant US champions the spot, they did, even if they also gave an injury bye. That kind of "lightening in a bottle" was beyond USFS control to shove back in, and there was no body of work concept, even if it wasn't called that except to determine a medical bye. Especially since 1996 was still part of the skating boom, and people were watching US Nationals like a hawk, and he had the best fluff.

Body of work cuts both ways: if a skater/team has good opportunities and the international judges and callers are making it clear how they score a skater, then giving a skater who excels at Nationals and has a junior resume -- which both Edmonds* (JGPF, 4th, <2 points behind Medvedeva) and Brown (respectable in his first senior GP, medalled in his second, after USFS tried to force him to stay junior another year, and they still didn't send him to Worlds) -- did isn't that exceptional, unless the skater left home has major endorsements.

"Lightening in a bottle" at US Nats often doesn't translate into a second peak a month or even 2-2.5 months later, even for seasoned competitors, and USFS often gives love to skaters at Nationals that international judges don't. Evora/Ladwig were an exception by scoring over 170 internationally at the Olympics, which was within 2 points of the Nationals scores, also 20-30 points over their GP scores (in the 140's), whereas it usually translates into an ~ 20 point drop, like for Ryan Bradley between 1st at US Nationals and 13th at Worlds.

It's not simply placements: results can include the strength of the field, the scores -- is the difference between podium and 6th 4 points? 15 points? a start order of 10/37 vs. 34/37? -- the protocols, the strength of the competition, was a skater suffering from food poisoning, and all of that has to translate into whether it's worth setting aside US Nats results, at the top of the list for 2013 and the top of Tier 3 for 2018. And, they get to make up from skater to skater what criteria they are using.

*I don't think USFS, in the first year of using this to their perceived advantage, was willing to override US Nats results for two spots. (I think they would have dropped Edmonds, if her and Nagasu's scores had been flipped, even if Nagasu was coach-less.) And until the US #1 Pair is in a position for US to earn three Pairs spots, I don't think they care which US#2 they send. I hope that the Knierims don't make USFS have to make a tough decision in Pairs with China in pursuit for the team bronze.

If you look at other results besides placement, then, so far, adding in the early CS events to Tier 3:

Chen:
Tier 1:
3. 2017 Worlds: 4th-199.29​

Tier 2:
2. 2017 4C's: 12th-166.82
​
Tier 3:
1. Challenger Series:
  1. USIFSC: 3rd -182.32
2. 2017 US Nats: 1st-214.22​

Wagner:
Tier 1:
3. 2017 Worlds: 7th-193.54​

Tier 2:
2. 2017 4C's: N/A
​
Tier 3:
1. Challenger Series: N/A
2: 2017 US Nats: 2nd-211.78​

Nagasu:
Tier 1:
3. 2017 Worlds: N/A​

Tier 2:
2. 2017 4C's: 3rd-194.95​

Tier 3:
1. Challenger Series:
  1. USIFSC: 2nd-183.54
2: 2017 US Nats: 4th-194.90​

Bell:
Tier 1:
2. 2017 Worlds: 12th--187.23​

Tier 2:
2. 2017 4C's: 6th-177.10​

Tier 3:
1. Challenger Series
  1. USIFSC: 6th-168.66
2. 2017 US Nats: 3rd-197.92​

Zhang:
Tier 1:
2. 2017 Worlds: N/A​

Tier 2:
2. 2017 4C's: N/A
​
Tier 3:
1. Challenger Series:
  1. Ondrej Nepela: 6th -- 167.95
2. 2017 US Nats: 5th​

Tenell:
Tier 1:
2. 2017 Worlds: N/A
​
Tier 2:
1. Challenger Series:
  1. Lombardia: 4th-196.70
2. 2017 US Nats: 9th-169.98​

Tier 3:
3. 2017 Jr. Worlds: 7th-161.36
4. 2017 JGPF: N/A​

Andrews:
Tier 1:
2. 2017 Worlds: N/A​

Tier 2:
2. 4C's: N/A
​
Tier 3:
1. Challenger Series: N/A
2. 2017 Nationals: N/A -- I don't remember Jr. Nationals counting, but if they are, 2nd-155.14
3. 2017 Jr. Worlds: 12th-149.05
4. 2017 JGPF: N/A​
 
@kwanfan1818 thank you for bringing up 2011 Nationals. Sending Ross instead of Jeremy is probably the craziest decision ever and they paid for that mistake with one World spot which they didn't gain back for a few years.
 
Marco said:
@kwanfan1818 thank you for bringing up 2011 Nationals. Sending Ross instead of Jeremy is probably the craziest decision ever and they paid for that mistake with one World spot which they didn't gain back for a few years.
Click to expand...
Well, we did learn about USFS's weighting system, ie, that two GP medals and a 5th place finish at prior Worlds wasn't worth more than a fraction of a point.
 
Marco said:
@kwanfan1818 thank you for bringing up 2011 Nationals. Sending Ross instead of Jeremy is probably the craziest decision ever and they paid for that mistake with one World spot which they didn't gain back for a few years.
Click to expand...

You Speak as if Jeremy going would have saved the third spot. Jeremy had to medal that worlds for US to get three spots because Dornbush (the best placement) was 9th(which would become 10th had Jeremy placed higher). So Jeremy's best placement at worlds (5th) ever plus 10th would be 15, even if he could repeat that 5th.

I am totally fine with Ross going, and I like Jeremy more than Ross. It was clear to me by 2011 Jeremy's batting average on the short program was low, and once he makes a mistake he makes another (remember him being the national champ and finished behind his teammates at the olympics, and he placed ok at worlds only because there was less competition post Olympic) and I remember Ross doing as well as can be expected. The weak link was Bradley imho, but blame that on the nationals judging panel.

Also, it is crazy to apply a fed's selection criteria in one year to a different year and expect that to be the same in another year. It is kinda like saying, I expect Trump to be consistent with Obama and US policies to be consistent over time despite change of people and management. Every single organization I work for changes policies over time
 
Last edited:
You are right, @jlai. It would have been difficult to keep that 3rd spot in any event given how Ryan and Richard skated. But at that time, as @kwanfan1818 mentioned, Jeremy had a solid 2010 season and 2011 GP season, medalling at both GP events. Ross had a subpar 2011 GP season, palcing 7th and 9th and barely beat Jeremy by a fraction of a point at Nationals. So it is fair to say that at 2011, body of work did not come into play.

I suppose we would never know how Jeremy would have skated at 2011 Worlds, but he did go on to medal at 2011 4CCs, beating Kozuka who would go on to medal at Worlds. That Worlds was postponed due to the earthquake in Japan and every one had extra prep time as a result.
 
Marco said:
You are right, @jlai. It would have been difficult to keep that 3rd spot in any event given how Ryan and Richard skated. But at that time, as @kwanfan1818 mentioned, Jeremy had a solid 2010 season and 2011 GP season, medalling at both GP events. Ross had a subpar 2011 GP season, palcing 7th and 9th and barely beat Jeremy by a fraction of a point at Nationals. So it is fair to say that at 2011, body of work did not come into play.

I suppose we would never know how Jeremy would have skated at 2011 Worlds, but he did go on to medal at 2011 4CCs, beating Kozuka who would go on to medal at Worlds. That Worlds was postponed due to the earthquake in Japan and every one had extra prep time as a result.
Click to expand...
If you insist on talking body of work then JA placed fifth twice in post Olympic worlds, 11th once and once 8th and once 9th. And 2011 was the world where quads were required on the podium. Jeremy didn't land a quad (or rotate one) that season if memory serves and was only landing 6 triples at his best showing of that long program. Jeremy doesn't Chang jump layouts well mid season.

Could we get back to ladies?
 
Last edited:
I don't remember how specifically defined body of work was in 2011 for Worlds, but now it doesn't go back officially before prior year's Nationals. Not that I trust a closed jury, especially USFS, to stick by their rules.
 
I think simply taking the podium at US N ats would be an error. A great skate or a bad skate on one night should not IMO be definitive. At least not with the kind of inconsistent and sloppy skating these Ladies put out...i.e URs...two footed or the popular fall apart.
 
Simone411 said:
ITA about taking time to rebuild. But I believe Polina is very serious about her situation, and she also has the determination and commitment to achieving her goal. That kind of spirit can make success out of something that no one else believes is possible. I believe that Polina will be one to watch during Nationals, and who knows, she might just make the team and surprise everyone. :)
Click to expand...
Sure, and Jason Brown is even more serious about landing quads (not saying this sarcastically), it takes more than determination and commitment to be up there with the top skaters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information