ISU Гран При 2011/2012 || ISU Grand Prix series 2011/12

Другие фигуристы, различные фигурнокатательные мероприятия || Other skaters and events without Evgeni

Re: ISU Гран При 2011/2012 || ISU Grand Prix series 2011/12

Postby cekoni » 15 Dec 2011, 05:40

clairdelalune wrote:
cekoni wrote:[i]I almost become an expert for skating :sh_ок: :-) ... what I said so many times? :plush46:

:co_ol: :a_g_a:

Rewarding failure diminishes sport :plush34:
http://savefigureskating.blogspot.com/2 ... rt-if.html

But if they return to the "old", no one will again jump quads :plush38: :-(

By my, they should:
- to increase more scores for the successful quad
- make a precise classification within the GOE for the quality of the quad
- reduce - or the number of elements which they are assessed, or reduce the number of points for them, or to forbid too many transitions, steps and spins - if they can limit the number of jumps, may to limit and that! ::yaz-yk:
Image
User avatar
cekoni
Administrator
 
Posts: 24627
Joined: 03 Jun 2009, 09:19
Location: Serbia
Has thanked: 3635 times
Been thanked: 21292 times

Re: ISU Гран При 2011/2012 || ISU Grand Prix series 2011/12

Postby cekoni » 15 Dec 2011, 08:48

Ошибки фигуристки Туктамышевой стали позитивным моментом - Мишин:
http://sport.ria.ru/figure_skating/2011 ... 50432.html

Скотт Моир: «Думали, что нашего катания хватит для победы в финале Гран-при»:
http://www.sports.ru/others/figure-skat ... 78479.html

Космические оценки фигуристов Дэвис/Уайта и Вирчу/Мойра пугают - Жулин:
http://sport.ria.ru/figure_skating/2011 ... 57063.html
Image
User avatar
cekoni
Administrator
 
Posts: 24627
Joined: 03 Jun 2009, 09:19
Location: Serbia
Has thanked: 3635 times
Been thanked: 21292 times

Re: ISU Гран При 2011/2012 || ISU Grand Prix series 2011/12

Postby clairdelalune » 15 Dec 2011, 11:56

I know everybody is angry wirh Chan´´s scores, but in my opinion Fernandez was very overscored too. Compare his PCS to Hanyu´s , it´s unbelievable. 8.21 for skating skills? :sh_ок:
ImageImage
User avatar
clairdelalune
 
Posts: 877
Joined: 15 Apr 2010, 15:04
Has thanked: 60 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Re: ISU Гран При 2011/2012 || ISU Grand Prix series 2011/12

Postby cekoni » 15 Dec 2011, 21:15

clairdelalune wrote:I know everybody is angry wirh Chan´´s scores, but in my opinion Fernandez was very overscored too. Compare his PCS to Hanyu´s , it´s unbelievable. 8.21 for skating skills? :sh_ок:

I dont know for Fernandez :du_ma_et: ... but i SAW and FELT how Hanyu was expressive, comparing with more "mature" skaters :co_ol:
Image
User avatar
cekoni
Administrator
 
Posts: 24627
Joined: 03 Jun 2009, 09:19
Location: Serbia
Has thanked: 3635 times
Been thanked: 21292 times

Re: ISU Гран При 2011/2012 || ISU Grand Prix series 2011/12

Postby cekoni » 15 Dec 2011, 21:18

Opining on Grand Prix Final: Kostner’s lutz dilemma, Tuktamisheva's jitters:
http://www.examiner.com/figure-skating- ... tz-dilemma
Image
User avatar
cekoni
Administrator
 
Posts: 24627
Joined: 03 Jun 2009, 09:19
Location: Serbia
Has thanked: 3635 times
Been thanked: 21292 times

Re: ISU Гран При 2011/2012 || ISU Grand Prix series 2011/12

Postby Rika » 16 Dec 2011, 15:23

cekoni wrote:Opining on Grand Prix Final: Kostner’s lutz dilemma, Tuktamisheva's jitters:
http://www.examiner.com/figure-skating- ... tz-dilemma


So... I don't like this examiner, he want to show Kostner's gold medal like not-deserve. (And why the compere Kostner with Tuktamishieva? Unluckly Elizaveta wasn't able to catch the 1st place after SP, so what's wrong? We shouldn't put Tuktamishieva against Kostner.)

I'm agree only for this: maybe Kostner needs two 3flip, but the 3lutz isn't compulsory (like 2axel, for example). Every skater made a choice, and if the other skaters with more difficult jumps make mistakes, the tattics of a "simple and clean program" win...
It's useless to talk about this choice... It's like a F1 car-race: is better to do 1 or 2 pit-stops? Only the result of competition can answer about it, and every competition has his own and unique story.

Keep calm, figure-skater examiner !
Image
User avatar
Rika
 
Posts: 74
Joined: 17 Mar 2011, 18:15
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Re: ISU Гран При 2011/2012 || ISU Grand Prix series 2011/12

Postby cekoni » 17 Dec 2011, 12:58

Rika wrote:
cekoni wrote:Opining on Grand Prix Final: Kostner’s lutz dilemma, Tuktamisheva's jitters:
http://www.examiner.com/figure-skating- ... tz-dilemma


So... I don't like this examiner,...
...

Keep calm, figure-skater examiner !

Like I said: just imagine, such are the others N/A Figure skating "experts" :ps_ih: ... when he is the most "decent"? :kli_ny: :plush34:
Image
User avatar
cekoni
Administrator
 
Posts: 24627
Joined: 03 Jun 2009, 09:19
Location: Serbia
Has thanked: 3635 times
Been thanked: 21292 times

Re: ISU Гран При 2011/2012 || ISU Grand Prix series 2011/12

Postby cekoni » 17 Dec 2011, 17:50

Image
User avatar
cekoni
Administrator
 
Posts: 24627
Joined: 03 Jun 2009, 09:19
Location: Serbia
Has thanked: 3635 times
Been thanked: 21292 times

Re: ISU Гран При 2011/2012 || ISU Grand Prix series 2011/12

Postby cekoni » 18 Dec 2011, 03:46

The Final Word: Chicago's Brown still riding high: Hao Zhang re-injures shoulder; Takahashi questions transitions score - by Lynn Rutherford
http://www.icenetwork.com/news/article. ... y=ice_news

-----------------------------------------

http://kwantifiable.xanga.com/757701167 ... or-series/

The Increase of 'Questionable' Judging Trends
by Richard O'Neill *

Since its introduction, the new ISU judging, has been a huge success. The complexity of the program has effectively eliminated most of the inconsistencies and potential abuse of the past. No longer can an individual judge manipulate or influence a full panel's result through the power of ordinals given by individual judges, as occurred in the old 6.0 system. The new scoring system gives detailed analysis of a skater's performance, initiating a platform that gives skaters clear feedback, critical to their future training and personal development. Yes, the new system is admired by the overall majority of participants in the sport. It has generally allowed for fairer judging assessments, meaningful advancement of skating by generally giving more clarity to all components within figure skating. But has it reached a perfect condition yet? No. I question such an assumption due to certain troubling trends that are occurring this season in the Senior Grand Prix series for the first time since the new system was introduced. The integrity of the system as it was designed and intended, is potentially at risk.

Historically, judges scores in the new system have been overwhelmingly consistent. Scores rarely branched much out of the zero zone to a minus or plus 3 for Grades of Execution [GOEs] unless for clearly failed elements deserving a -3. In recent times, the ISU Technical Committee urged judges to explore the range of -3 to +3, especially higher values for exceptional elements deserving of such credit. The GOEs definitions for minus, zero and pluses are quite clear and defined. See ISU Communication 1611, page 10. Also read 'Scale of Values', page 1, for number values details that guide judging ranges for elements.

This season we are seeing a huge range of minus and pluses on a given element that are not following the intended purpose of the range and are questionably defying the definitions as written. Note 'zero' is intended as average. Minus and pluses are defined for negative and positive specifics that are demonstrated in each jump. Judges are required to value both good and lesser aspects when grading the element. This why you often see a zero given when there are both good and poor aspects within the jump. This season there are at least, 6 examples of GOEs ranging from +2 to -1. One extreme example of this type of GOE ranging was Adam's Rippon's X3 lutz. The element was given a GOE range of -1 to + 3. at the Paris Grand Prix. You might debate that Rippon's given lutz was not necessary the best quality he can deliver. You can suggest his air position was not 100% uniformed for him. The jump had a slightly loose free leg exit in the landing. However, you need to factor in his exceptional arm usage in the air, the quality of outside edge use, good height and other conditions of the jump when evaluating the totally performed element as delivered in Paris. I can see a justifiable range of marks to allow a 1 or 2 point/level GOE difference. But no panel of judges can not justify a range of 3 or 4 points for this given element. The definitions clearly disallow this.

True, the high and low were not calculated in the Rippon jump. Hence, you throw out the -1 and +3 scores. Those 2 judges had some explaining to do in the post event judges panel discussion. Clearly such an extreme difference in scoring represented 'questionable or wrongful judgments'. However, even upon closer examination of the remaining four +1's, 2 zero's and one +2 scores offer a considerable range of scores according to the definitions of minus, zero and pluses. Consequently, I question what is happening to the rules and definitions of scoring this season?

Rippon's discrepancies in scores is not a unique case this season. Such examples are becoming more common. There are 6 examples of zero to + 3 GOEs so far. There are numerous cases in past months of zero to -2 GOEs even with highs and lows thrown out. How can Javier Ferandez receive a -3, a -1, and 7 zeros for an legal jump combination, even if the lutz was doubled in Moscow with triple toe this weekend? Minus 3?!! Clearly, we are seeing more questionable scores on elements in the Grand Prix series. This is not a good sign.

The Officials Assessment Commission is a committee set up with each ISU event to review the judging panel marks. Established within each set of marks by the computer, a corridor of scores exists that defines fair value according to the average of all the marks. When a judge is within this corridor he is considered not wrong in his/her assessment. When a judge is outside that corridor, he/she is evaluated as ' wrong' with potential serious consequences to the judges credibility, according to ISU rules on judges. I assume quite a few judges are under severe scrutiny so far this season because such discriminating scores are becoming more common place than in the past. This is not a positive trend in judging. But let me take it one step further.

What if all the judges are within a corridor but the entire panel is to say; perhaps too high? What consequences exist for such a grand error? The current system does not provide consequences for such actions. It is based on the assumption that it is not possible. However, recent events suggest otherwise.

The most questionable case involves the very talented, very popular World Champion, Patrick Chan. Chan's performance at Paris was not his best obviously. Although it was perhaps arguably good enough to win. But were his Program Component scores justified? Indisputably, Chan has been clearly the worlds leader in PC scores, in recent history. His world title performance was truly exceptional. His program components qualities are generally the best delivered and choreographed in today's market. However, in Paris his program was marred by some technical element errors and other unfortunate, unusual mistakes that clearly lead me to question the PC values given to Chan. Such scores are not consistent with the intent of the written definitions for PC scoring.

Chan's PCs scores were clearly too high considering the errors performed. Scores in the 9's out of a maximum of 10 were not justified. More precisely, his performance and execution segment score averaged 8.21 compared to his 8.5 average at Skate Canada for a better skated program compared to the same marred program as he skated in Paris. In addition, you can compare these scores to his 9.11 world performance score for this same segment and question the validity of his Paris scores. The actual performance in Paris was obviously a much lesser quality compared to Moscow or Toronto. I suggest his average PC's scores in Paris were inappropriate and given for historical respect of his qualities rather than for his actual given day performance in Paris. I can agree with the opinion, that Chan deserved to win Paris. However, I highly dispute a given margin of 10 points over the 2nd place skater to do so. Yes, Chan would have probably still won, if he was given realistic scores in the PCs. However, this panel's average scores were outside 'the corridor' of realistic scoring and failed to abide by the definitions of PCs. This is not a positive trend in our sport. The 'corridor rationale' of the new judging system, failed in this case.

What message is this trend sending skaters and coaches? Chan is one smart kid. Undoubtably, he viewed some Paris judging details as a 'gift'. I am confident his training strategy for better performances will continue as planned. Trust me, I am Canadian... I want to see Chan win. But, I want him to win fairly based upon the definitions of our sport and more importantly, I want the integrity of the new judging system to be certain for all future competitions.

However, I question why and how this judging corridor error was made. Is the same error plausible in reverse for an unknown skaters who are under valued in PCs because they are not 'recognized' and they are a less established in the world court? I suspect, 'yes'. [But thats another topic for discussion] More importantly, how can this problem be corrected for the future? Should we have automatic deductions in the PC scores like in elements, to insure PCs evaluations are in accordance to the intended definitions? I am not a fan of 'too many rules'. However, the famous coach Alexander Mishin has publicly stated similar concerns over PC scores that need to be addressed. There is no clear answer to this problem. It is a very complex issue with no easy quick answers. But the weakness in the system has shown its face and needs to be rectified within the current framework of the ISU system.

The Grand Prix Mens final event offers additional support for the concerns, I raise. PC scores in the 9's are simply over valued when considering the errors Chan made in both programs.

This new problem in judging raises concerns for the future integrity of the new judging system. This is not how things were intended 'to be'. The ISU Technical Committee needs to address this concern immediately within the Committee's current means and ability. Without clarification, judges, themselves, will get the wrong 'message'. It will open the door to potential grievances that occurred in the old 6.0 system. Failure to address these trends, will potentially cause a serious, wrongful placement result, due to total points received or denied that determine placements. Such an argument can be made in the case of the recent Grand Prix Mens final. More judging failures will further add to the public's questionable 'judging perspectives' of skating and drive viewers away. The ISU Technical Committee needs to address this before a World Championship when the whole world is watching closely. Now is the time for the ISU to enforce what is clearly declared 'right' vs. what is 'wrong'. I trust the Technical Committee will do whats become 'necessary' to strengthen the judging system with renewed consistency of grading scores.

(* Note on the Author - Richard O'Neill is an International Coach who has had skaters at various World Championships in the past. He is currently Technical Director of the Puerto Rican Figure Skating Federation.)
Image
User avatar
cekoni
Administrator
 
Posts: 24627
Joined: 03 Jun 2009, 09:19
Location: Serbia
Has thanked: 3635 times
Been thanked: 21292 times

Previous

Return to Мир фигурного катания || Figure Skating

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron