Pandora’s Box?2017 4cc men's figure skating

[gsyzf]

As I noted Boyang Jin impressed me a lot more live then on video. I didn't "hate" his skating per se, but I was definitely sort of meh on him.

A better example for me, though not men, is Bobrova/Soloviev. I did not care for them AT ALL and probably was veering on anti-fan but after seeing them in Skate America in 2012, I became an instant fan.

But that's also because that person's performance has some quality you like. If you don't like any of that person's quality, then your opinion won't change whether or not you watch them on tv or live. So it's still a reflection of your own value and preferences.

---------
ETA: What I'm saying is that a person's judgement through live performance is still a subjective assessment based on his/her preferences and values. That kind of assessment isn't objective in anyway. But some people think a live performance assessment is some kind of objective assessment.

 

[Li'Kitsu]

Yes, I think too live vs. TV can change impression. Personally, I didn't care about Kavaguti/Smirnov at all on TV, but live, I instantly loved them. Pang/Tong, Dima Aliev and Chock/Bates are to other examples where I went from 'meh' to And before seeing them live, I didn't like Virtue/Moir much, but they blew me away live. Jaw down gapping on the ice before me blown away.
(Edit: I typed that before gsyzf's last post ^, I agree live impressions aren't objective either. But there interesting to read and some of the differences between live and TV sometimes explain some differences in opinion between TV watcher and judges, IMO)

But Shoma has been labeled as an artist whereas Nathan hasn't.

Only a world in which tech determines PCS to some extent (as it does now) can Hanyu receives higher scores in SS than Patrick Chan. And yet we've all accepted that that is the case. But Nathan gets PCS boost and it's the end of the world.

You must have selective reading skills if you haven't seen the criticism towards Shomas PCS then.

And no, there have been multiple mentions about how Patrick is getting hosed the most right now with that PCS scoring (compared to the other top men - skaters from no name federations are still worse off, obviously). And it's still not right.

 

[Lys]

But that's also because that person's performance has some quality you like. If you don't like any of that person's quality, then your opinion won't change whether or not you watch them on tv or live. So it's still a reflection of your own value and preferences.

---------
ETA: What I'm saying is that a person's judgement through live performance is still a subjective assessment based on his/her preferences and values. That kind of assessment isn't objective in anyway.

There are some of us who can actually differentiate from subjective assessments and objective analysis of what's happening on the ice.

And I would like to remind that liking or not a performance has little to do with many aspects of scoring (nothing at all with GOE, nothing at all with SS or TR, ie).

 

[gsyzf]

There are some of us who can actually differentiate from subjective assessments and objective analysis of what's happening on the ice.

And I would like to remind that liking or not a performance has little to do with many aspects of scoring (nothing at all with GOE, nothing at all with SS or TR, ie).

If the assessment is objective, you wouldn't see so many different people give different opinions on the GOE, SS and TR. Those are also subjective because different people give different weight to different quality & features. Nobody has all the qualities. Depending on which quality or feature that person values more, you will see different scores being given to the same element or skill. If it's absolutely objective, you won't see so many differences in the scores on GOE, SS and TR from different judges and fans.

 

[Mrs. P]

But that's also because that person's performance has some quality you like. If you don't like any of that person's quality, then your opinion won't change whether or not you watch them on tv or live. So it's still a reflection of your own value and preferences.

---------
ETA: What I'm saying is that a person's judgement through live performance is still a subjective assessment based on his/her preferences and values. That kind of assessment isn't objective in anyway. But some people think a live performance assessment is some kind of objective assessment.

I generally try to keep an open mind with different skaters. I will say with Chock and Bates, that even though their skating isn't my cup of tea, seeing them live made me understand why they were seeing more success relative to the Shibutanis (who are my favorites in ID) at the time. I had no problem that Chock and Bates beat the Shibutanis at 2014 U.S. Nationals by a county mile.

I did ask about Nathan for the exact reason above -- while he didn't make a performance impression on me then didn't mean that could change over time. I do account that some people's live reports are colored by their personal biases, but I do feel that most people do sincerely try to give a fair take of a live performance.

 

[gsyzf]

I generally try to keep an open mind with different skaters. I will say with Chock and Bates, that even though their skating isn't my cup of tea, seeing them live made me understand why they were seeing more success relative to the Shibutanis (who are my favorites in ID) at the time. I had no problem that Chock and Bates beat the Shibutanis at 2014 U.S. Nationals by a county mile.

I did ask about Nathan for the exact reason above -- while he didn't make a performance impression on me then didn't mean that could change over time. I do account that some people's live reports are colored by their personal biases, but I do feel that most people do sincerely try to give a fair take of a live performance.

I understand that different individuals' live reports give different perspectives. So, it's useful to hear reports from different perspectives because different individuals pay attention to different things. But I just wanted to point out that live reports are also biased reports because some fans seem to think their live reports are some kind of absolute objective reports.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

But Shoma has been labeled as an artist whereas Nathan hasn't. FWIW, it's clear that Shoma's focus on the jumps has lowered the quality of his performances in comparison to last year, but his ability to do the insane number of and types of quads means he gets a PCS boost, too.

Nathan has performed better and better with each competition this season, but everyone wants to pretend that he isn't working on his PCS because it suits their narrative .

In a perfect world, PCS would've ranked the men at 4CCs in the following order:

Patrick>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hanyu>>Jason>>>>>>>>>>>>Shoma>>>>>>Nathan>>>>>Boyang

Only a world in which tech determines PCS to some extent (as it does now) can Hanyu receives higher scores in SS than Patrick Chan. And yet we've all accepted that that is the case. But Nathan gets PCS boost and it's the end of the world.

This. It's silly when people think that by focusing on quads skaters don't ever try to improve on their PCS (people use the same rhetoric when dissing D/R as only focusing on the tricks). As if these skaters don't train hours on end working on every aspect of their skating (especially under CoP). Nathan always HAS been an artistic skater with good skating skills, and edges, but as soon as he's added the quads in, he's relegated to being a technical skater by many people. Thankfully, the judges are crediting him, and not "holding down" his scores to allow the top guys to make errors but still win - as some on here would like. For many skaters, like Jin and Reynolds, that "tech skater" label can be super difficult to shake off, but Nathan/Shoma have done a good job in doing so. I also notice that a focus on the jumps is making Shoma not as appealing as before, but this is a season where the guys are getting their tech down (at the expense of artistry in many cases), and hopefully with that comfort level technically, they can push their programs come the Olympics in order to show a healthy balance of difficulty and program content.

 

[Tavi...]

Regarding PCS not being high enough for a skater to win, or another skater's PCS being too high, why are people ALWAYS bring it up to protest their favourite skater not winning (or, in many cases, when the skater they dislike ends up taking the win) when they don't really consider the grave errors that said non-winning skater made to deny themselves the win. People seem to forget that Hanyu doubled two quads and left out a triple. In 2012 people want Takahashi to win, but forget that his SP << or having only 1 quad in the FS. So with these technical issues, they complain that the PCS didn't "save" their skater sufficiently enough.

Also, by primarily a jump-fest I was referring to the fact that the skate was a technical masterpiece which obviously overshadowed any artistic capability. And the funny thing is, if Nathan had done all triples, people would probably be okay with the PCS but they seem to think that multiple high-level quads = artistically-deficient skate (unless you're Hanyu/Fernandez/Chan). And let's be honest -- people would have also been okay with Nathan's PCS, so long as it was sufficiently low enough + Hanyu's was sufficiently high enough for Hanyu to win. To me, Nathan was choreographically weak, but solid it on performance and had the skating skills. Hanyu was interpretation-wise weaker than his usual (ironically, like Nathan, the focus on technical elements meant the overall performance accordingly suffered for it), although the skating skills/transitions were solid. 94 was perfectly suitable PCS for that, even a bit generous given how measured his performance was. He still won the FS and got the highest PCS of the competition in both segments (even got 47 PCS in the SP with a major error).

But Nathan landed 7 quads - including 2 lutzes and 2 flips which Hanyu didn't even attempt, to Hanyu's 5. He made no major errors, and his technical output massively exceeded Hanyu's output (and everyone else's to an even greater degree, for that matter). He's the US champion, so his PCS is bound to be higher... but at the same token, he was still sub-90... Shoma last year had higher PCS at 4CC than Chen this year and I don't think Shoma was particularly better than where Nathan is now.

Well, my favorite skater is Jason, not Hanyu (though I like Hanyu), and Jason had no chance of winning. In fact, even if his PCS had been 4-5 points higher, he would have stayed in 6th place. So whatever others think, my comment had nothing to do with justifying why my favorite didn't win or place higher.

As to the rest:

1. In my opinion, the fact that Nathan landed five quads in his FS does not make the program a technical masterpiece deserving of high PCS. First, he got negative GOE on three jumps. Second, his GOE on the opening combo was simply too high. There's no way to reasonably account for that score except, "oooh, he did a really hard combo and got great height on the 4Z." That doesn't fulfill the criteria for 2.43 GOE (see below). Finally, superb execution of a technically difficult program is supposed to be rewarded in (a) the increased base value you get for the jump (e.g., 13.6 for a 4Z versus 6.0 for a 3Z) and (b) appropriate GOE. It shouldn't automatically be rewarded in higher PCS unless he also fulfills the criteria for high PCS:

http://static.isu.org/media/207718/1944-sptc-sov-communication-2015-2016.pdf
http://static.isu.org/media/1009/program-component-chart_sandp-and-id_08-16.pdf

2. What makes you think people would have been fine with his PCS if he were doing only triples? I can only speak for myself, but I made quite specific comments as to why I thought his PCS was too high. My opinion would be exactly the same if he'd done no quads - except that if he hadn't done any quads, it's unlikely he would have gotten PCS that high.

3. You keep saying his PCS is okay in relation to Hanyu's, Shoma's, etc. But that's not the standard by which PCS should be judged, except secondarily. Basically, you're reducing PCS to something that only matters as between the top few men, which is awarded subjectively, i.e., well I think Skater X skated better than Skater Y and he had more quads, too, so I think he should get high PCS but not quite as high as Skater Y because Skater Y is the Olympic Champion. Or something like that. PCS is an attempt to quantify performance skills other than jumping. Difficult, but it's supposed to be objective.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

The irony, when it was Patrick that was saved by PCS back then (Dai having a higher BV overall).

And this isn't a statement about who should have won WC 2012. It's a statement about your logic.



As long as the rest stays the same - heck no? Why on earth would that be the case?



Again, no? And Nathans PCS/GOE have been questioned before, when Yuzu wasn't involved?

You need to stop making these guessing scenarios. You're the only person I know who can basically argue with themselves and still be wrong. It's kind of amazing.

Dai had higher BV, but his GOE was subpar compared to Chan. Note how even with Dai's higher BV (~5 points), he and Chan were still essentially equal in terms of TES because Chan had much better execution of successful elements, had two quads instead of just one with excellent GOE, and was lucky to have his most critical error come on a measly 2A (note that the points lost on the waxel were about the equivalent of the points Daisuke lost in the SP on his downgraded combo).

People weren't lamenting why Daisuke couldn't have had a better 4T+3T in the SP, or why he hadn't made the decision to add a 2nd quad in the FS in order to make up technical ground and be more competitive with Chan, especially when he doesn't get great GOE on his jumps to begin with. Their main complaint is that Chan wasn't scored sufficiently low enough on PCS in the FS and Dai scored high enough for Dai to win. Similar to 4CC, people are complaining that Chen wasn't scored sufficiently low enough on PCS and Hanyu wasn't scored high enough in order to allow Hanyu to get a 4CC title, and like with Dai - they're ignoring the technical points Hanyu left on the table.

They're looking at how much the winning margin was and then stating how PCS should have been adjusted, lol -- at WC2012 it's around 6.5 points, so they'll say Dai deserved 3+ points higher PCS and Chan 4+ points lower PCS (or some combination that adds up to 7 or more points, giving Dai the win)... or at 4CC2017 it's around 3.5 points, so they'll say Hanyu deserved 2+ points higher PCS and Chen 2+ points less PCS (or some combination that adds up to 4 or more points, giving Hanyu the win). Hmmm, I suppose at WC2016, Javier deserved 15 points less PCS and Hanyu deserved 5 points higher PCS? :sarcasm:

 

[andromache]

3. You keep saying his PCS is okay in relation to Hanyu's, Shoma's, etc. But that's not the standard by which PCS should be judged, except secondarily. Basically, you're reducing PCS to something that only matters as between the top few men, which is awarded subjectively, i.e., well I think Skater X skated better than Skater Y and he had more quads, too, so I think he should get high PCS but not quite as high as Skater Y because Skater Y is the Olympic Champion. Or something like that. PCS is an attempt to quantify performance skills other than jumping. Difficult, but it's supposed to be objective.

For me, this is the problem we see again and again with PCS. It's an attempt to quantify the un-quantifiable, and only makes any amount of sense if viewed in relation to others. No one knows what a 10 in skating skills looks like in a vacuum - you only know what a 10 in skating skills looks like if you know what a 7 looks like, and this is true of every PCS category. PCS can ONLY be evaluated in relation to one another. In IJS, the nitty-gritty decimal points just obscures the facts. In an entire sheet of fairly similar numbers, there's little differentiation and what little differentiation there is can be used to decide the winners from the losers.

PCS can be used to prop up skaters who make mistakes, and it can also be used to punish them. Patrick Chan doesn't skate clean - let's give him less PCS to make sure he doesn't win a la 2013 Worlds. Yuzuru Hanyu totally bombs - let's make sure his PCS are high enough that he doesn't wind up with an embarrassing placement (2014 CoC). Nathan Chen does 5 quads - let's give him high enough PCS to win.

IMO, a straight-up ranking system would be more transparent than how PCS are awarded now. Force judges to declare that X is a better performer than Y, rather than tossing some similar numbers at them. Let's see judges overtly put other skaters ahead of Patrick in SS so we can call them out. 6.0 meets IJS - keep the categories, but make them ranked. Put Patrick first in skating skills and 5th in performance/execution. Then some sort of mathy stuff to calculate how much it's all worth to add to the tech score.

 

[Li'Kitsu]

Hmmm, I suppose at WC2016, Javier deserved 15 points less PCS and Hanyu deserved 5 points higher PCS? :sarcasm:

Eehhhh... :roll9:

Can we go back to reality here or something? But if you still don't get that "people are complaining that Chen wasn't scored sufficiently low enough on PCS and Hanyu wasn't scored high enough in order to allow Hanyu to get a 4CC title" is not the one and only thing happening here, I guess the answer is no.

 

[Tavi...]

For me, this is the problem we see again and again with PCS. It's an attempt to quantify the un-quantifiable, and only makes any amount of sense if viewed in relation to others. No one knows what a 10 in skating skills looks like in a vacuum - you only know what a 10 in skating skills looks like if you know what a 7 looks like, and this is true of every PCS category. PCS can ONLY be evaluated in relation to one another. In IJS, the nitty-gritty decimal points just obscures the facts. In an entire sheet of fairly similar numbers, there's little differentiation and what little differentiation there is can be used to decide the winners from the losers.

PCS can be used to prop up skaters who make mistakes, and it can also be used to punish them. Patrick Chan doesn't skate clean - let's give him less PCS to make sure he doesn't win a la 2013 Worlds. Yuzuru Hanyu totally bombs - let's make sure his PCS are high enough that he doesn't wind up with an embarrassing placement (2014 CoC). Nathan Chen does 5 quads - let's give him high enough PCS to win.

IMO, a straight-up ranking system would be more transparent than how PCS are awarded now. Force judges to declare that X is a better performer than Y, rather than tossing some similar numbers at them. Let's see judges overtly put other skaters ahead of Patrick in SS so we can call them out. 6.0 meets IJS - keep the categories, but make them ranked. Put Patrick first in skating skills and 5th in performance/execution. Then some sort of mathy stuff to calculate how much it's all worth to add to the tech score.

Good points!

As to PCS, not sure if you have seen the ISU DVDs for PCS? Several people have posted portions of them on YouTube, and theyre quite in depth and really interesting. They really do attempt to make it objective. It's just not being applied that way. Judges have to pay attention to a lot of stuff in a short period of time, so it's easy to see why they use shorthand - e.g., judge all skating skills with reference to Patrick Chan, etc.

Anyway, if you haven't seen them and have the time, theyre worth watching (but be forewarned, it would be really hard to watch all of them in one sitting!).

https://m.youtube.com/results?q=isu components&sm=3

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

1. In my opinion, the fact that Nathan landed five quads in his FS does not make the program a technical masterpiece deserving of high PCS. First, he got negative GOE on three jumps.

Well, when a program with 5 falls can get 84 PCS, somehow a program with 5 quads getting 88 PCS doesn't seem particularly outrageous to me.

A skater's difficulty absolutely should be reflected in the PCS they receive. You're telling me if a skater pops all their jumps to doubles, they should score the same as they would if they skated the exact same program but turned those jumps into triples or quads? Therein lies the issue of top skaters being "saved" because all to many times, judges look at their "usual'/PB scores and then deduct a little bit from that in wake of major errors.

Also, a masterpiece is a work of outstanding artistry, skill, or workmanship. And to me, the fact that Chen is able to attempt let alone execute that technical content, almost cleanly, makes it a masterpiece of technical skill. He's the only skater doing the hardest 2 quads, and he's doing 4 different quads. If that isn't technical mastery, I have no idea what is. Oh wait, but the axels weren't clean. Gimme a break. That's like saying Mao's 2014 Olympic FS wasn't a technical masterpiece because she got 2 URs.

 

[Tavi...]

Well, when a program with 5 falls can get 84 PCS, somehow a program with 5 quads getting 88 PCS doesn't seem particularly outrageous to me.

A skater's difficulty absolutely should be reflected in the PCS they receive. You're telling me if a skater pops all their jumps to doubles, they should score the same as they would if they skated the exact same program but turned those jumps into triples or quads? Therein lies the issue of top skaters being "saved" because all to many times, judges look at their "usual'/PB scores and then deduct a little bit from that in wake of major errors.

Also, a masterpiece is a work of outstanding artistry, skill, or workmanship. And to me, the fact that Chen is able to attempt let alone execute that technical content, almost cleanly, makes it a masterpiece of technical skill. He's the only skater doing the hardest 2 quads, and he's doing 4 different quads. If that isn't technical mastery, I have no idea what is. Oh wait, but the axels weren't clean. Gimme a break. That's like saying Mao's 2014 Olympic FS wasn't a technical masterpiece because she got 2 URs.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. If you look at the bullet points for components, there's nothing about elements, although I believe one of the ISU component videos does reference landing edges on jumps as one factor in skating skills because a well-landed jump on a proper edge shows balance. But its not a big factor, and it doesn't say that it should be rewarded more heavily in th case of harder jumps.

By the way, I never said that a program with 5 falls deserved 84 PCS.

 

[Altie]

Well, when a program with 5 falls can get 84 PCS, somehow a program with 5 quads getting 88 PCS doesn't seem particularly outrageous to me.

Yes, you're right, let's compare that one time where Hanyu got high PCs after bombing BECAUSE HE JUST HAD A CONCUSSION, and where honestly the question should not be his score but wether he should have skated AT ALL, to Nathan Chen's PC scores... What is your point ??? What is your logic ???

Why are you always comparing Chen and Hanyu btw ? The question here is absolutely not if Yuzu wuz robbed or Idk, in fact most here are perfectly OK with Chen getting the gold, but wether Nathan PCs AND GOEs are fair, compared to ALL other skaters, including Boyang Jin, Jason Brown, Misha Ge, Patrick Chan

But you're avoiding every sound, rational argument that you were given. I hope you're at least intentionnally trolling...

 

[Ares]

I don't like that certain people on this board try to deflect any criticism of skater's PCS or more generally scores using ''you're sore loser'' argument - some apparently try to make it all about specific Yuzuru vs Nathan clash thing, but that's not the crux. It makes no sense and leads nowhere, that problem goes much further than outcome of this specific competition and has been harmful for this sport since some time. It basically discourages skaters from developing skating skills, presentation etc. because when you get quads you can get astronomical PCS either way (in specific circumstances also more widely understood esp. if you're from specific federation).

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Eehhhh... :roll9:

Can we go back to reality here or something? But if you still don't get that "people are complaining that Chen wasn't scored sufficiently low enough on PCS and Hanyu wasn't scored high enough in order to allow Hanyu to get a 4CC title" is not the one and only thing happening here, I guess the answer is no.

Read the paragraph that was in. I was joking about certain fans who seemingly love to do the math and point out "Well if the winner got X points less PCS, and my fave skater got X points more PCS, that equates to greater than the margin of victory, and my favourite skater would have won!"

I don't understand what you're getting at. I'm addressing that Nathan Chen's win wasn't just a product of PCS, and saying he won because his PCS was improperly marked is trivializing the fact that he landed 7 quads (almost all cleanly), and practically shows disregard of the massive number of points Hanyu left on the table. It's almost a deja vu from Skate Canada when Patrick also beat Hanyu and people were like Chan's PCS should have been lower - and Hanyu's higher... just enough to have allowed Hanyu to get the win (in spite of leaving 40+ points of BV on the table).

Hmmm... so, when Hanyu's making major technical errors/having tentative skates, and it's costing him a couple wins people complain that the judges haven't given him generous enough of a PCS gap to win over other skaters. But these same people love to point out the scandalous, egregious, controversial wins where Chan made technical errors and had tentative skates, but still won because of a PCS gap over other skaters. Interesting.

 

[Li'Kitsu]

Read the paragraph that was in. I was joking about certain fans who seemingly love to do the math and point out "Well if the winner got X points less PCS, and my fave skater got X points more PCS, that equates to greater than the margin of victory, and my favourite skater would have won!"

I don't understand what you're getting at. I'm addressing that Nathan Chen's win wasn't just a product of PCS, and saying he won because his PCS was improperly marked is trivializing the fact that he landed 7 quads (almost all cleanly), and practically shows disregard of the massive number of points Hanyu left on the table. It's almost a deja vu from Skate Canada when Patrick also beat Hanyu and people were like Chan's PCS should have been lower - and Hanyu's higher... just enough to have allowed Hanyu to get the win (in spite of leaving 40+ points of BV on the table).

Hmmm... so, when Hanyu's making major technical errors/having tentative skates, and it's costing him a couple wins people complain that the judges haven't given him generous enough of a PCS gap to win over other skaters. But these same people love to point out the scandalous, egregious, controversial wins where Chan made technical errors and had tentative skates, but still won because of a PCS gap over other skaters. Interesting.

I'm getting at the fact that you seem to trivialize any form of criticism at Nathans scores as "Hanyu fans complaining their favorite didn't win", which is (at least in significant part) not what this is. There is a big amount of criticism towards Nathans scores completely independently from Hanyu.

Which same people would that be?

 

[ice coverage]

Well, when a program with 5 falls can get 84 PCS, somehow a program with 5 quads getting 88 PCS doesn't seem particularly outrageous to me. ...

Yes, you're right, let's compare that one time where Hanyu got high PCs after bombing BECAUSE HE JUST HAD A CONCUSSION, and where honestly the question should not be his score but wether he should have skated AT ALL ..., to Nathan Chen's PC scores... What is your point ??? ...

CSG's point is valid to me.

Collision or no collision, the job of the judges was to give scores to the free skate that Hanyu presented.
(And as always, scores that do not cut any slack to an injured skater.)

Obviously, the collision was dangerous. Hanyu chose to go forward with competing -- without anyone requiring or asking him to.
If any official could have intervened, it was the referee, not the judges.
Whether Hanyu should have competed after the collision was not a decision for the judges to make. And the question should not have been a consideration for the judges as they were giving scores.

 

[Pamigena]

^ A competition where 100% of the people involved should plead temporary insanity is not a prime example for anything.