Jump to content

Recommended Posts

That’s... such a bad move. I’ve always liked Zhou (I never believed the American propaganda that he’s the best skater yadda yadda yadda, tho) but I’m gradually starting to get irritated by him and his coach. I know it’s not Zhou’s fault that everyone is treating him like he’s above or like he’s the messiah of skating bc of his quads, but suggesting that camera faults resulted in his score is...  a bit rude towards skaters who actually scored higher. Just... learn to accept “failure”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yikes that article. I agree that there should be better cameras, but the implication that Vincent's URs were called incorrectly is *rolls eyes* I don't think Vincent would fare better under more camera angles and higher speeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US media reinventing the wheel:tumblr_inline_ncmifdw7151rpglid: Equipment for panels isn't the best, this isn't new, and it's a bit disappointing that we have articles about that only thanks to Vincent of all the skaters it's as if jpn media had started a campaign for better camera angles claiming Satoko's jumps were unfairly called (sorry Satton:tumblr_inline_mw5grieCFe1qid2nw:). All skaters are judged with the same bad equipment, included Vincent's competitors at 4CC. It's likely all of them have sometimes been unlucky (or lucky) with camera angles on some jumps and have received unfair calls (or avoided fair calls. Leaving aside the selective blindness from panels atm). But for Vincent to have such monumental bad luck so often...!!! (oh wait...when it's not bad equipment, there are ballerina ankles to blame)

I think it's already the second article in a few months framing Vincent as The victim of unfair calls...but...well, I'll be happy if US media could really put some pressure to ISU and force them to improve the equipment.

 

Quote

"that’ll take a lot of hard work on my side and not blaming others for giving me bad calls.”

YES, please.

 

btw, leaving aside the reason of the article, I don't think the piece is bad. I agree with the main point -- ISU should give better tools to panels (and also work on making scoring more consistent....but one step at a time). ISU owes that to skaters, whose careers depends on the calls they receive.

Quote

“If a panel isn’t sure, they say, ‘Well, we’ll give them the benefit of the doubt,’” Rossano, who operates the figure skating website iceskatingintnl.com, said. “But if you give that skater points they don’t deserve, you punish everybody else, especially if they are going to call quads.”

That's true too. Same could be said about the argument 'lenient panel but consistent panel is fine'. No, I want a strict and consistent panel. maybe it's just one skater, but if that one skater has rotated all the jumps, he/she deserves to see that reflected in BV, even if it means the other 15 skaters have lower BV due to the strict calls. Why would that one skater count less than the other 15? It's not like the other 15 are being unfairly dinged...

Quote

And coaches should be careful what they wish for: higher-speed equipment could, in certain cases, expose additional weaknesses in jumps, including rarely called pre-rotations.

:iagree: nice from LynnR. to say that:sipping:

and whoa is that PRE-ROTATION I read, on NBCsport?

Weird, I thought no one in the skating workd cared about PR, why is she even mentioning that? :confused: not so long ago, someone, somewhere else, felt compelled to claim that, on behalf of the whole skating community, so this is actually quite funny:smiley-devil:

Quote

“If they’re going to measure the sport, they better get the equipment that they can measure it with,”

YES PLEASE I'M BEGGING

 

In the meanwhile Japan is out there experimenting with ice-scope...who knows, maybe in 20 years or so the currently available technology will be implemented in FS... after all ISU is still stubbornly insisting on CDs...in the era of cloud sharing... 20 years feel like a reasonable time:dpooh:

tho ISU is in good company in behing way behind the times...it took an awful lot for football to even start experimenting with VAR...and at least there is one practical reason for ISU's delay: fundings (or rather, their lack of):sigh: why no billionaire is interested in making donations in figure skating? It's a such a beautiful sport...so diverse...full of riveting narratives, athletic feats, unexpected twists and there is DRAMA:003:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LadyLou said:

That's true too. Same could be said about the argument 'lenient panel but consistent panel is fine'. No, I want a strict and consistent panel. maybe it's just one skater, but if that one skater has rotated all the jumps, he/she deserves to see that reflected in BV, even if it means the other 15 skaters have lower BV due to the strict calls. Why would that one skater count less than the other 15? It's not like the other 15 are being unfairly dinged...

:iagree: nice from LynnR. to say that:sipping:

and whoa is that PRE-ROTATION I read, on NBCsport?

Weird, I thought no one in the skating workd cared about PR, why is she even mentioning that? :confused: not so long ago, someone, somewhere else, felt compelled to claim that, on behalf of the whole skating community, so this is actually quite funny:smiley-devil:

YES PLEASE I'M BEGGING

 

In the meanwhile Japan is out there experimenting with ice-scope...who knows, maybe in 20 years or so the currently available technology will be implemented in FS... after all ISU is still stubbornly insisting on CDs...in the era of cloud sharing... 20 years feel like a reasonable time:dpooh:

tho ISU is in good company in behing way behind the times...it took an awful lot for football to even start experimenting with VAR...and at least there is one practical reason for ISU's delay: fundings (or rather, their lack of):sigh: why no billionaire is interested in making donations in figure skating? It's a such a beautiful sport...so diverse...full of riveting narratives, athletic feats, unexpected twists and there is DRAMA:003:

*sigh*

The issue of tech panel is pretty simple. If we were to judge 100 meter dash, a referee needs to ensure all athletes are really running 100 meters and start at the same point. Not someone gets to jump start 0.5 seconds early, someone can get away with running 90 meters and another needs to go 110 meters to count.  If that were allowed, we'd consider the sport a complete farce.

 

And that is essentially the role of the TP- ensure everyone is starting more or less at the same baseline (BV in this case). We already have PCS issues, GOE biases, country biases etc, that already are doing the equivalent of giving athletes a slight 0.5 seconds head-start. The least we could do is ask the TPs to ensure people are doing a full 100 meters. (Not to mention there is already PR allowances so technically not everyone is starting at 100 meters).

 

As for PR- I know this sounds like conspiracy, but part of me wonders if it isn't targetted towards potential Beijing contenders early on. In this case, I'm looking at Shoma's 4F in particular, potentially Gogolev's 4Lz, and potential Russian men coming up. In short, any of the potential contenders with a decent reputation for Pre-rotation, since US is quite secure in Nate's jumping ability.  This also allows some opening of the floodgate to PR against JPN and Russian ladies, especially Russian ladies who have a PR reputation to a degree.

USFed does want a medal, which it hasn't had for a long while internationally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Xen said:

*sigh*

The issue of tech panel is pretty simple. If we were to judge 100 meter dash, a referee needs to ensure all athletes are really running 100 meters and start at the same point. Not someone gets to jump start 0.5 seconds early, someone can get away with running 90 meters and another needs to go 110 meters to count.  If that were allowed, we'd consider the sport a complete farce.

 

And that is essentially the role of the TP- ensure everyone is starting more or less at the same baseline (BV in this case). We already have PCS issues, GOE biases, country biases etc, that already are doing the equivalent of giving athletes a slight 0.5 seconds head-start. The least we could do is ask the TPs to ensure people are doing a full 100 meters. (Not to mention there is already PR allowances so technically not everyone is starting at 100 meters).

 

As for PR- I know this sounds like conspiracy, but part of me wonders if it isn't targetted towards potential Beijing contenders early on. In this case, I'm looking at Shoma's 4F in particular, potentially Gogolev's 4Lz, and potential Russian men coming up. In short, any of the potential contenders with a decent reputation for Pre-rotation, since US is quite secure in Nate's jumping ability.  This also allows some opening of the floodgate to PR against JPN and Russian ladies, especially Russian ladies who have a PR reputation to a degree.

USFed does want a medal, which it hasn't had for a long while internationally.

Interesting. Well if it takes USFed politicking to get some decent tech equipment and fair tech calls, I'm all for it. But in ladies, Alysa Liu is known for having a PR problem, isn't she? I guess she's very young so she could fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, shanshani said:

Interesting. Well if it takes USFed politicking to get some decent tech equipment and fair tech calls, I'm all for it. But in ladies, Alysa Liu is known for having a PR problem, isn't she? I guess she's very young so she could fix it.

Has she been targetted in US Media though? I thought US Media is going "brilliant, exquisite, huge, one of a kind" with her jumps. o_O

If we look at US Media, the big one is Shoma, and then Satoko. After that, whomever survives of the Russian girls (I think Kosto won't get dinged much, but watch them go after Schebakova and Trusova).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I'll be going OT for a bit, but I had an idea and wanted to put it out there in case anyone has the time or mood to do something about it (since I sadly don't have either of those, nor the means ^_^; )

 

Given the recent revival of talks about jumps only vs. full package and since I was recently re-watching Yuzu performing old programs sans jumps in CiONTU, it made me wonder what other skaters' programs look like without jumps. Just the program as it is, music as it is, just blur or blacken the image from take off to landing of every jump, removing the spectacular impact of the jump. And maybe also the opposite. The same program with just the jumps, including entry and exit (to better emphasize difficult steps into/out of, if possible), but with music, to see how/if it matches the music. Perhaps also including the scores that were awarded (PCS and spin/step sequence, choreo GOE for the first and GOE for the second). I think it could be really interesting, and perhaps eye opening in some cases. It would however take quite a bit of work and surely cause a lot of arguments, too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Xen said:

The issue of tech panel is pretty simple. If we were to judge 100 meter dash, a referee needs to ensure all athletes are really running 100 meters and start at the same point. Not someone gets to jump start 0.5 seconds early, someone can get away with running 90 meters and another needs to go 110 meters to count.  If that were allowed, we'd consider the sport a complete farce.

:1497158260_5GOE: Funny how this apparently is too hard to get for some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be a UO: I'm fine with the 4 min mark for men. I just want another jump gone, and level requirements to be more sensible.

If the level requirements won't ever make sense, then keep the jumps, dump a spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hoodie axel said:

Might be a UO: I'm fine with the 4 min mark for men. I just want another jump gone, and level requirements to be more sensible.

If the level requirements won't ever make sense, then keep the jumps, dump a spin.

I want the same number of jumps and possibly about 20 seconds back in the long. XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Xen said:

I want the same number of jumps and possibly about 20 seconds back in the long. XD

That could work. But at the end, nothing matters as long as the judging stays the same.

 

I think 6 jumps plus lower level requirements would be great as long as the judges actually judge quality. So six big jumps, great positions and edge quality, and great performance and musicality in four minutes is physically exhausting, like a sport should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t want them to lower level requirements I want them to actually differentiate and give more points to higher level spins and steps.

 

And yeah, same number of jumps with more time sounds good to me.

 

I’d also like a deflation of PCS but lmao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, axelnojutsu said:

I don’t want them to lower level requirements I want them to actually differentiate and give more points to higher level spins and steps.

 

And yeah, same number of jumps with more time sounds good to me.

 

I’d also like a deflation of PCS but lmao

I don't think a deflation is necessary, I think it's necessary for judges and the judging system, and even fans, to accept that gaps do exist.

Very few skaters, especially when trying to climb up rankings, will try to really balance the PCS and TES. TES, especially BV is much easier--> do a jump or spin etc successfully, you get the point. And it's much more straight forward.

 

However, that is a choice and judges should recognize and accept that choices were made. Scores might not be as high, but they would no way be truly "low" just because PCs aren't keeping up with the BVs. They were not really supposed to, and it's not like all skaters are PCS-artistry type of skaters. It does create the problem that if a skater gets 88 PCs out the gate, but increase and do in fact do better years later, they can't get higher PCS. People wonder why TES and BV is ballooning- well geesh, look at what other options are given, especially if new senior skaters from big feds are getting 88% of their maximum PCS already in year 1. :headdesk2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, axelnojutsu said:

I don’t want them to lower level requirements I want them to actually differentiate and give more points to higher level spins and steps.

Why? Currently, what happens is that even with bad quality positions and edges, skaters get high levels. If the requirements are lowered, the skaters can focus on what they are capable of doing with higher quality. Reward difficulty and quality through GOE.

 

Otherwise, what can happen is take the same level requirements, but make sure the GOE rewards are the same across all the levels. So people who are simply not yet at the level of doing level four spins and steps are deducted in BV, but the GOE they get for practising to deliver what they have with quality is worth the effort. Otherwise, skaters just labour through low quality level four elements, without respect to quality.

 

This would ideally also come with PCS rewards, because your making it all look stronger and effortless. It takes hardwork.

19 minutes ago, Xen said:

I don't think a deflation is necessary, I think it's necessary for judges and the judging system, and even fans, to accept that gaps do exist. 


I don't think PCS needs to be touched anymore, but we'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that’s why I said I want them to actually differentiate 

But I don’t think the answer to incorrect judging is to make the rules so the judging is right like when they erased the steps before jump thing

 

And I want them to deflate the PCS precisely to allow those gaps instead of having everything at the top in a range of 0.5 points 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...