OK - finaly, one serious, "no-spitting" analysis
.... maybe we can agree, or do not, learn something from this about the "new rules", draw some conclusions ... maybe is just "right" time, before the World Championship
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.examiner.com/x-20118-Figure- ... h-analysisFebruary 20, 3:37 Figure Skating Examiner, Jackie WongLysacek vs. Plushenko: An in-depth analysisTrue to the drama that is figure skating, there have been a lot of emotions, outrage, and controversy surfacing since American Evan Lysacek defeated Russian Evgeni Plushenko in an oh-so-close decision on Thursday. The debate has been split between those who feel that Lysacek’s quadless all-around package deserved the gold and those who found Plushenko’s technically more difficult program to be the rightful victor.
Writing as an analyst for Yahoo! Sports for Vancouver, two-time Olympic silver medalist Elvis Stojko was downright incendiary, practically saying that because of this decision, figure skating is no longer “a real sport.” The Figure Skating Federation of Russia has likened the result to the 2002 controversy in the pairs’ competition, very much in the same vein as their unsuccessful protests against Irina Slutskaya’s loss to Sarah Hughes during that same Olympics.
So what’s the conclusion? Was this the “night that killed figure skating,” as Stojko wrote? How did Lysacek win the gold? Or better yet, how did Plushenko lose it? Emotions aside, let’s take a look at what actually transpired.
Quad or no quad? Advantage: PlushenkoI agree with many skaters and judges who feel that quadruple jumps are not worth nearly as much in base value as they should be given their relative difficulty to triple jumps. In fact, the way that jump values are given needs to have a complete makeover. It’s ridiculous that, for example, performing a solo triple lutz and a solo triple toe will actually garner a skater the same number of points in base value as doing a triple lutz-triple toe combination. And to top it off, because Grades of Execution (GOEs) are given to each jumping passes separately, the two solo jumps would actually be worth more than the combination if both are executed comparably well.
Taking the skaters themselves out of the picture, what was reflected in the Lysacek vs. Plushenko battle in the technical department was the fact that skaters have been playing to the rules set forth by the ISU Judging System (IJS). While many of the elements seem to have the correct base values relative to one another, others do not.
Quads are undervalued. The increase of value from a triple lutz to a triple axel is 2.2 points, but the increase from a triple axel to a quad to is only 1.6 points. This difference just makes no sense, as a quad toe is relative much more difficult to a triple axel than a triple axel is to a triple lutz. Plus, skaters run the risk of falling on an underrotated quad, which takes the jump from 9.8 points to zero points.
So in essence, Plushenko deserved more for his quadruple toe.
Strategic error was detrimental for Plushenko. Advantage: LysacekWhat seems to have been missing from all of these arguments from the two sides of the debate is the rest of the jump content that the two skaters had. Lysacek landed eight triples with three combinations, one of which was a three-jump combo. Plushenko landed a quad and seven triples with three combinations, all of which were two-jump combos.
Whereas Lysacek maximized his technical content with his maximum eight jumping passes, Plushenko didn’t. Being the guy who has publicly stated that he focuses on the jumps, one would think he would have – and should have – had eight triples in addition to his quad. Another triple would have put him over Lysacek easily. In fact, even without the extra triple, had he just done a three-jump combination with a backend double loop (all singles skaters are allowed one in their free skates), he would have made up the final difference between him and Lysacek.
Another strategic error was the way that Plushenko’s program was structured. Only three of his eight jumping passes were placed in the second half of his program, where all jumping passes are worth an extra 10% in base value. Of the four jumps in those three passes, there was only one, the triple lutz, that was really all that difficult. In contrast, five of Lysacek’s eight passes were in the second half and he placed four difficult jumps in that period. The 10% boost is a nod to better conditioning and risk-taking.
If the competition was really just hinging on the quad, then you might as well just have a jump-off between the skaters to see what the most difficult jump they can land is and then award the medals according to that. There was no secret as to how each jump they did was going to be scored. And from Plushenko’s camp, there was little doubt as to the base value of the jumps that Lysacek had planned in the free skate. All the talk about the quad and no one has mentioned all the other jumps that they did. That was what made the difference.
Even with the quad, the total base value of Plushenko’s jumping passes was 59.33, whereas Lysacek’s maxed out jumping passes and strategic placement had a 58.23 base value. The advantage that Plushenko had with the quad toe was almost completely erased. Judges have always counted jumps, even before the IJS. This should not have come as a surprise.
The non-jump elements and execution
What do you mean the spins and footwork count? Advantage: LysacekIn interviews that Plushenko has given during his comeback season, he has continuously mentioned this “new system” and the changes that judging has gone through. He makes it seem like the IJS didn’t exist when he won the Olympics. He had plenty of practice with the IJS in his heyday, and had no complaints about it when he was pummeling the field, even though the same issues with undervalued jumps, giving points to spins and footwork, and his favorite transitions component existed.
And again, amidst all the talk about quads, most have neglected to mention that there are other elements that count for points in figure skating. The spins and footwork done these days are exponentially more difficult and physically taxing than the ones done during the 6.0 era. I do think that there have been some detrimental effects to the purity of spins and the speed and musicality of footwork, but skaters are finally starting to make them work better.
Plushenko had 15.7 points for his spins and footwork, whereas Lysacek had 16.7 points. Lysacek had the advantage of a more difficult sit spin and a more difficult circular footwork sequence. Both of Lysacek’s footwork sequences were, in reality, exceedingly more difficult than the ones that Plushenko did.
Again, if skating is all about jumps, then you might as well just have skaters have a jumping contest. No music, no spins, no footwork, just jumps. But then again, wouldn’t that not be figure skating?
Execution of elements. Advantage: Lysacek (slightly)I wrote in a preview profile of Plushenko that if he skated two clean programs, I would have a tough time seeing the judges give the gold to someone else. And while he landed all of his jumps, some of the execution was neither strong nor clean. A weak landing on his first triple axel that could have been considered a step out. He landed on his toepick on the quad and on the wrong edge on second lutz, which all were execution errors.
Lysacek also had execution issues on some of his passes. He had a weak landing on his toepick on his second triple axel and a questionable takeoff edge on his triple flip. In terms of the execution of the other elements, Lysacek was slightly stronger.
Plushenko had a total of +7.60 in Grades of Execution for his elements, whereas Lysacek had a total of +9.64. And all else equal (and this was certainly the case considering they tied in Program Components Scores), the execution was really what won the Olympics for Lysacek.
Who took the Program Components? Advantage: PlushenkoIt may seem strange that I gave the advantage to Plushenko with the two skaters tied in their PCS, but while the IJS undervalues some of the harder elements, the judges themselves have a tendency to incorrectly value the individual components marks. The idea of breaking up the old presentation mark into five different “components” is so that intangible aspects like skating skills can be properly distinguished from things like choreography and interpretation.
In
skating skills, Plushenko does have a slight edge over Lysacek. He has an ease of movement and quiet ability to generate power that is often underappreciated.
In
transitions, there is no question that Lysacek should have been way higher than Plushenko, and the difference that the judges awarded was too minimal. It is questionable how two judges gave him an 8.75 for transitions when he has very few. One wonders how this would have panned out without the Joe Inman email controversy. There have been criticisms about this mark because some equate transitions with slowness. But the best transitions are the ones that allow skaters to maintain the speed and power throughout while doing more than just crossovers, something that Lysacek does very well.
In
choreography/composition, Lysacek has the slight edge. He fills out the rink more with his program and there was more choreographic interest throughout. Where Plushenko misses out is during the first sections of his free skate where the jumps are the main focus.
In
performance/execution and
interpretation, it can be argued that the marks can go either way based on personal taste. Plushenko’s performance and interpretation was much freer than that of Lysacek, who seemed a bit tentative in spots, especially at the beginning. But his relation to the music was more campy, whereas Lysacek’s was more sophisticated. It’s a question of whether blowing kisses to the judges and the audience multiple times is more your cup of tea than touching yourself multiple times to the nuances of the music.
The reason Plushenko gets the advantage here is that while both skaters scored a total of 82.80 in their PCS, Plushenko’s total mark should have been lower, particularly as a result of an almost deficit number of transitions and linking footwork that was overmarked by the panel.
Ok, so who should've won? What’s the conclusion?The treatment that some have given Lysacek as a result of his win has been downright brutal. Plushenko said that a “true champion” would have a quad in his program. To his credit, Lysacek refused to become embroiled in the pettiness of some of the comments, instead giving due respect to Plushenko for what he has done for the sport. Great PR or genuine feelings? No one will ever know, but he is saying the right things.
Lysacek is a true champion in the fact that he had to clean programs and skated strategically appropriately, whereas Plushenko’s program construction was not strategically strong and he had questionable execution on some of his elements. The IJS was designed to make things more transparent, and this is one occasion where it did.
Yes, the base value of quads need to be reconsidered (and perhaps due to this controversy, they may be). But the judges’ scoring for individual components marks also needs to be reconsidered.
It was a close call, but Lysacek deserved it in a photo finish.