Jump to content

shanshani

Members
  • Content Count

    1,517
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About shanshani

  • Rank
    Poohpalooza

Personal Info

  • Country
    Hong_Kong

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I feel really conflicted because I really want to go and can technically afford it (I don't spend money on anything except rent, food, and figure skating ) but I don't want to support this level of price shenanigans. At those price levels you might as well switch to an auction system, since at least whatever exorbitant prices result there will be the organic result of fan enthusiasm.
  2. Pretty sure 1 top tier ticket literally costs more than my whole trip to ACI last year, which included a plane ticket from Hong Kong to Toronto.
  3. I predict prices will go back down after Yuzu retires. Yikes.
  4. Yup. And then you have to repeat the process again for all the edges *glares at backwards edges, which I have practiced so much* My skating rink called me and told me they wouldn’t be able to get my skates sharpened until May 4th. Gonna go visit some other rinks and inquire about skate sharpening services—that is way too long to be skating on blunt blades.
  5. I think people exaggerate how easy it is to tell what Asian country someone is from. I've had plenty of people in Asian countries mistake me for Korean despite the fact that I am mixed Northern/Southern Chinese. Furthermore, I think hairstyles and fashion are more indicative than facial structure. Sometimes someone has a really distinctively x face (for instance, I think Boyang is very northern Chinese looking, though tbh I think there's also a lot of overlap between Korean and North Chinese), but for a lot of people I don't think you can really tell a lot of the time, at least if you're just looking at their facial structure. It's easy to say stuff like "so-and-so has a really Japanese nose, it's so easy to tell" when you know their ethnicity but I think a lot of that is confirmation bias. As for Yuzu's popularity in China, I think nationality just doesn't matter as much to Chinese people as it does to, say, Koreans. It's pretty common for people to be fans of people from other countries--for instance, kpop fandoms are pretty big in China too, and even when there are Chinese members of a kpop group, they're not necessarily more popular than the Korean members. And honestly, if you literally engineered someone to fit Chinese cultural ideals, I'm not sure you could do better than Yuzu
  6. last time I tried to get them sharpened the skate shop just handed the skates back to me after a week and told me it didn't need it, so I've been feeling kind of sheepish about going back without my coach's say sowhen I asked two weeks ago he told me they were fine and beginners don't need to sharpen as often as more advanced skaters, but they really don't feel fine any more. Plus I don't think he's noticed my habit of doing t-stops from high speeds, which I imagine is part of why my right outside edge in particular feels like it's starting to go. I guess I'll suck it up, bring them in today or tomorrow and make sure the shop actually sharpens them this time.
  7. Me starting to work on jumping: I HAVE NO FEAR Me attempting an inside 3-turn: *giant scaredycat* These things are terrifying Anyway, trying to add a hop in the middle of RBO glides to imitate landing. Landing on the correct edge is harder than it looks Bunny hop is ezpz though, although my right leg could be straighter. I'm jumping them with a good bit more entry speed and height than when I first learned them last week though. I also think I badly need my blades sharpened. My coach said they were fine a couple of weeks ago, but in the interim it feels like part of my right outside edge has disappeared. My RFO is awful as of late and all my edges seem more difficult in general. Plus I've never had my skates sharpened but they must have around 100 hours of ice time by now at least. Unfortunately I have to give up my skates for a week, but I can't practice for most of the upcoming week anyway. Petty: Saw someone who I'm pretty sure was the person who was mean to me when I was a total newbie trying to learn backwards swizzles. I am now a better skater than her. Revenge
  8. I think it would be great if ice scope could give us flight times as well. It would be a good reality check for the height numbers.
  9. Flight time (s) Maximum height in a vacuum (cm) 0.68 56.7 0.70 60.1 0.75 69.0 0.76 70.8 0.78 74.6 The stats for flight time versus maximum height in a vacuum on Earth if anyone is interested. Actual heights would probably be lower because of air resistance and there's a little messiness since this tracks the skater's center of mass rather than their blade location. Still, should be roughly right.
  10. Per standard kinematics, flight time is a direct function of height, unless there's some large difference in air resistance between the two jumps, which there isn't. You can't jump way higher but remain in the air for only a bare fraction longer--that not how gravity works. So unless Nathan has somehow figure out how to manipulate the gravitational fields around him using his mind, those 4Lz numbers are highly suspect. Edit: Based on my calculations, a jump with a flight time of 0.7 seconds has a maximum height of 60 centimeters in the absence of air resistance. The equation for maximum height (in meters) of a projectile in a vacuum as a function of flight time (in seconds) is 1/8*9.81*(flight time)^2. This is high school level physics stuff (I should know, I am occasionally called upon to teach high-school level physics), kind of embarrassing for Perform Live to be honest. The only complication here (besides the largely negligible are resistance) is that foot movement could through off the relationship a bit if you pull your foot towards your torso before landing in order to spend a little more time in the air, but that would result in a lower height for the same flight time. So 60 cm should still be the maximum.
  11. This is a problem that can be solved with more data, because these sorts of issues should average out somewhat in the long run, though there are some complications if there's a negative correlation between height and other GOE bullets. Again, note that the correlation is calculated across many data points--the fact that an individual skater didn't land too well isn't going to influence the data that much unless they're a big outlier, which Kevin, whose 3A was only 3 cm above average, is not. So sure, x skater might have done better on y bullet points even when they didn't jump as high and so gotten higher GOE, but if height is actually being rewarded, then these individual differences will average out and we'll see some kind of signal among the noise. But there was no signal at all, or possibly a negative one with we (quite justifiably) remove Yuzu from the data set. Let me note that sociological studies have found a stronger correlation between a person's height and income than there was between 3A height and GOE at Worlds. Obviously quite a lot of things factor into income besides height, but the point is that using statistical methods, we can cut through the noise of those other factors and detect whether a relationship exists between the two variables of interest. When I used those statistical methods on the 3A data, I detected nothing, or a negative relationship. So the fact that other factors affect GOE is not a reason why there would be no correlation between jump height and GOE. It is a reason to expect that the relationship would not be strong, say more around the range of r=0.2-0.3 than r=0.8, but not a reason to think no relationship would exist at all or that it is negative. Again, more data would shed light on this, but the data available so far is enough to raise questions, in my opinion.
  12. Enzmann didn't show strong US bias in the data sets I looked at. I suppose that doesn't preclude her from judging poorly in particular instances though, since the bias metric I used is an average across many skates and a judge can hide if they limit their biases to a small number of cases, especially if they underscore competitors rather than overscoring their own. On the other hand, without reviewing the specific Helsinki score more carefully, I'm not sure I would feel comfortable putting her in the "THAT judge" category. (Speaking of the bias data, I'm rather quite behind on that and the fact that judges are rotated between the SP and FS is throwing a real wrench into my plans. I mean, I knew that was going to happen, but I still don't have a great way of handling it. Sigh. Also, there's only so much time you can spend looking at spreadsheets as a hobby.)
  13. Catching up on this thread. Here's what I proposed on GS: What makes most sense is if a certain number of possible GOE points are available for height and distance, and you get a % of them depending on how far/high you jumped, all completely graded by computer. The standards could be set using historical data. For the sake of demonstration, it could work like this. Let’s say we allot 1 GOE point available to be earned for height and distance, maybe split 0.5 for height and 0.5 for distance. (Someone made the comment that this should probably in actuality be 10% of BV, which I agree with. Going to use 1 just to make the math easier though.) Suppose we take a bunch of 3A data and we find that the biggest height is 0.7m and the biggest distance is 3.62m (which indeed was the case in the World’s SP). Let’s also say that, once we take into account lower tiers of competition, we find that the average 3A height is 0.56m and the average length is 2.62m. Let’s stipulate that your 3A has to at least be slightly above average to start earning height/distance GOE points (but of course we can argue about this—maybe the standard should be higher, maybe lower). From this, we could construct a scale where your height/distance GOE is proportional to how far your 3A is above the average, and the standard for full marks is set by the maximum height/distance among the historical data. So, applying this to the Worlds men’s SP 3As, assuming those measurements are accurate, it would look like this: Yuzuru Hanyu would get maximum marks for his 3A on both height and distance, as their height and distance matches the maximum height and distance in the historical data (obviously this is cheating a bit since I’m using his 3A in the historical data but this makes the math easier to demonstrate and the numbers somewhat grounded in reality, so deal with it haha). Therefore, he gets the full 1 point for height and distance. Shoma Uno would get 0 points for height on his 3A, since his height of 0.51 is below the average height of 0.56. However, he would also receive (3.44-2.62)/(3.62-2.62)=82% of full marks for distance, as his distance of 3.44 is 82% of the way between the average (2.62) and the maximum (3.62) in the historical data. Therefore, he would earn 82%*0.5=0.41 GOE for distance. Mikhail Kolyada, on the other hand, would receive (0.65-0.56)/(0.7-0.56)=64% of full marks on height, as his height is 64% of the way between the average and the maximum, so 0.32 points. But he would receive nothing for distance, as the distance on his 3A (2.5m) is below average. (I personally kind of disagree with this and would argue for weighing height more, but we can argue over the details, this is just demonstration.) Nathan Chen would receive (0.58-0.56)/(0.7-0.56)=14% of the full marks on height, for 0.07 GOE, and (2.66-2.62)/(3.62-2.62)=4% of the full marks on distance, for 0.02 GOE. Therefore, he would earn 0.09 GOE in total for jumping slightly, but only slightly, higher and longer than average. (Of course, let me note that I completely made up the average numbers—the actual average for clean 3As in the Worlds SP was 0.59m height and 2.87m distance, but I put lower numbers on the theory that the men at Worlds would have bigger 3As than all of the men who can jump a 3A do on average). Keegan Messing, on the other hand, would receive (0.64-0.56)/(0.7-0.56)=57% of full marks for height, giving him 0.29, and (3.33-2.62)/(3.62-2.62)=71% of full marks for distance, giving him 0.36, for a total of 0.65 GOE for a strongly above average but still somewhat short of the maximum jump in terms of size. Anyway, you get the idea. Again, the details can be tweaked, but I find the general idea to be much more sensical than a binary choice of whether the jump had “very good” height and distance. Of course, all the math can be done by computer, so all this is fully automated. It also has interesting strategic consequences—in addition to doing a better job of incentivizing jumping big, which I think the current judging is very bad at, it also has the interesting side effect that if you can figure out how to jump much bigger than your opponents, you can suppress their GOE scores (presuming the historical data is continually updated, which I think it should be). For instance, Yuzuru’s 3A was a whole 5 centimeters higher than the next highest 3A, from Mikhail Kolyada. Consequently (under this example scoring regime), no other competitor was able to score more than 64% of the points available for height! I think that would add an extra dimension to the competition and really encourage bigger jumps. Admittedly, it would be difficult to set standards for jumps that are rarely jumped, like 4Lo and 4F. In those cases, perhaps standards could be set using a data set pooled from all of the quads. Unfortunately, I think that might short change 4Lo jumpers a bit, since I don’t think loops tend to get as high and far as other jumps because of the mechanics of the jump, but it would be a fair compromise until a bigger data set is built, and certainly better than whatever passes for height/distance judging now.
  14. Yes, but amplitude is a factor that is supposed to improve GOE, and currently amplitude is effectively punished by the judges (or at least was in the World's SP 3As).
×
×
  • Create New...