hoodie axel

I don't think the 5Lz was a PR move, or at least it won't be successful. To me, it looks like they're trying to push the quints' inclusion for the upcoming congress. Frankly, I hope it doesn't happen, because none of these were even close -- so if the ISU includes them, it would mean that these jumps might even be ratified if landed "cleanly" in competition, along with all that would mean.

As long as there's no skin slicing choreo...

Yes, I used to be on the "can't detach the movie from the song" camp, which is where people are on famous movies like Schindler's List (and I get it with pieces like that), but not anymore. Let's see what happens.

It's true that Romeo and Juliet, Carmen, and Roxanne tackle difficult themes for teenagers, but I also think they somewhat simplify interpretation by just being "love story", "sassy", and "tango" respectively. I guess currently I just don't see what they'll even do with the songs unless there was like a waltz or something in it. I do think it can be an artistically innovative program, we had Giada Russo skating her step sequence to the orgy scene from a movie at the Olympics (and there was also her skating to Hable Con Ella, and I haven't watched that movie, but it was interpreted as a Flamenco this season by Boyang so there's some freedom of interpretation when it comes to movie sound tracks), but I guess I don't see us particularly getting innovation with Eteri's camp or in terms of getting Shcherbackova there in terms of artistic maturity, and I fear for some uncomfortable literal interpretation currently (I'll take the other path they sometimes walk on, of attaching no interpretation to it at all).

I don't see how she could possibly understand what she's even doing with that movie and its songs.

lol

Fair enough.

Hmm. He's done good Chaplin, Romeo and Juliet, and Les Mis. For Jason, I hope they use his flexibility in the right way for this program. It could easily start to appear too "grand" and therefore disrespectful with the overall theme (although it's up for debate if they'll end up utilizing the song's association with the movie and its topic), but used in the correct way and fine tuning his performance quality to go with it could work wonders. Assuming they do go with the movie's topic, though, I'm not sure that it can be done justice with the kind of requirements we have for spin positions and footwork requirements. Almost inevitably we'll have overtly busy footwork that detracts, and a sit or camel (and definitely intermediate) spin position that doesn't work at all.

The delay in rotation seems entirely fabricated. Not only do I not know how they calculated with such precision, not one of them "delays" a jump. The delayed technique -- proper one where they close right at the apex of the jump as seen on singles and doubles in far, far older competitions, instead of closing just slightly later after the vault which several textbook jumpers (+ Polina Tsurksaya, who isn't a textbook jumper) kind of do anyway -- hasn't yet been accomplished on triples and quads, and probably won't be (and they don't even have that other type of "delay"). According to those stats, Trusova is 0.06 seconds less than halfway through the completion of the arc of her 4T before she closes, and Shcherbackova is 0.02 seconds away on her 4F. Lol.

Those pre rotation stats seem false.

I think Raf can fix technique, like Kwan's Flutz, or Asada's toe axel, who were both very hard working with great work ethic, but certain other skaters did have the terrible toeloops TM and failed to fix it for a variety of reasons I'm sure, so fingers crossed for Gogo. As for programs, it's too early to say with Gogolev. I don't agree that he already has a "style", he's just 14, and Raf's school has programs that present the skaters well to the judges if nothing else.

Not shocked it's true.

Did you ask why?

Aw it's Ted Flett such a great interviewer.

The ISU want to make sure there are two "top" competitors that can draw an audience as a "match up" in the big meets -- aka money.

@makebelieveup sorry for the tone. In that post, I was confused where the miscommunication occurred, and also didn't understand why technical elements shouldn't be part of PCS.

But we weren't talking about what the judges do...? At least, I wasn't. I merely answered your questions about what *I* think should be the case. What will you be using to grade the program PCS? No spins, no steps, no jumps. So only the transitions between these elements? And how will you ignore the impression these elements create in your mind? Will the judges close their eyes, stuff their ears, and hum when they happen? If you still want to include steps and spins, why are they specifically part of the choreography and interpretation, and not the jumps? Looking at what the judges are doing and disabling them from doing so by forcing artifice isn't a fix. This isn't how you debug code; you instead find what's wrong with your algorithm. We're not. I said I don't care either way, in a more roundabout fashion. The *correct* scoring of pcs is a different issue altogether. Even then, that would be done on a raw pcs template, and scaled up. I didn't though? I said the rewards for +GOE are too high. If it were +5%, +10% and so on, it could work.

This is exactly what I meant.

OK, so you were talking about jump landings. "Good flow" is also a way to judge SS, though. How would you describe "good flow across the ice" less vaguely? I also don't know if there's such a thing as an "ideal" landing posture, as much as there is a correct "over the skates" alignment. Even for this though, I don't think the "must use eyes" part of the sport can ever be discarded... I think it's less a problem of the rulebook (in this particular case, but also many others: how do you describe depth of edge?) and more a part of the training. I also don't care (or at least have begun to stop caring) about what fans say on Twitter, or even here or other websites, in the context of their favorites. The competitive spirits are high, the objectivity is out of the window, and I hardly expect everyone to know the rulebook and skating (and I'm fine with it). It's the judging that bothers me, not the inane justifications for it from fans. (It must be said, I find your use of language absolute hilarious. It's great.)

Yes. Every single element and movement on the ice is a part of the choreography and interpretation (along with the technique imparted by skating skills, the difficulty and creativity of transitions, and the overall execution and engagement via performance). Why else do you think they are artificially trying to limit PCS for "serious errors"? You ignored the fact that transitions and skating skills are in play when it comes to a part of TES, though, even ignoring spins and steps. That's already a link between TES and PCS. I took your prompt as "ignore the judging agenda", and so I did. I've already spoken up against this multiple times before. No. I don't see the point of +GOEs scaled as they are currently, is all, because the rewards are too great. The harsher penalties as dealt by the -GOEs, OTOH, is desirable, for me; I would even say they should be harsher. But this is directly against what I'm saying. If everyone's PCS is to be scaled by 1.3, then EVERYONE's PCS will be higher. Take whatever PCS the top 6 got at worlds, and multiply those by 1.3. That's what we'll have. Their PCS will still be capped: at 130, instead of 100. The differences will be scaled by 1.3, too, but those almost never decide podium spots with men, nor are the differences too great in the 1x vs the 1.3x scale. Take a 9.0 point gap in PCS currently. This difference will become 11.7 point in the 1.3x scale, so an additional gap of 2.70 points appears. Not particularly worthy of consideration the way (current) men's skating goes. As a matter of principle, I guess I have no qualms with PCS rescaling, but I just don't see the point. These slight margins might change the way the judges deal with PCS raw scores, but I don't think it will be anything significant there, either.

Don't diss the coffee! Well, IDK about the other things, but how would you describe flow?

Goes by too fast, but looks like his technique is more Shoma than Yuzuru on it...

You've phrased it as somewhat of a loaded question IMO, but: yes, a little. A (good) quad can produce a much stronger look on the ice than a double or a triple, and therefore it can add to the choreography/interpretation of the piece (or can take away). Stronger spins and footwork add to the piece. The type of entries you choose for your elements (considered in GOE) can add or detract. Good landings can add to the aesthetic, being able to use your knees on landings figures into SS, the outflow creates a more seamless link with the exit transitions. That speaks nothing of whether or not a quad is needed. The minimum height needed for a quad lutz is higher than a 3Lz, but a great 3Lz can still beat an average 4Lz in terms of looking "powerful" (but it won't be as full of a jump, so depends). Not to mention, this happened, and that's probably the best PCS performance ever, with "just" doubles and triples. It's really going to depend on the overall choreo. I do not like this artificial limitation to PCS evalutation. I can see how it's necessary, but I place it onto the judges' lack of training instead. I don't think the percentage evaluation is correct; getting 50% of the BV for +5 GOE elements isn't a good thing, IMO. Getting more scaled GOE credit for a +5GOE quad than a +5GOE 2A is exactly right though (and that was true even in the previous system). It's a step they've taken to test it out, and I don't blame them for it. I hope they realize it's a failure, now. This isn't correct in my view. IDR exactly what Ambesi said, but if it's just rescaling the current PCS by 1.3, then the ones who are getting 90 will simply end up getting 117.

It's where Chan trained, right?

Sui and Han are training with Dave Pelletier. For context that I lack with these older pairs skaters, why does Twitter seem to dislike Pelletier?