- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
Thanks to everyone who started to focus on the video and got this thread back on track. Very much appreciated!
Thank you for your opinion on this. Regarding the GOE and the assessment of bullet points, I would like to mention first that the person who did that was Yulia (who did all of that analysis completely by herself!). The group who then put it into a video is a different one, although of course we asked for her permission and she checked the video. I see where you are coming from when you say the GOE grading isn't objective, but at least for me, it's starts out with the fact that I didn't want to leave out some of Yulias work in the video. If we got the permission to work with her analysis, I personally wanted to use the complete one (and I'm talking strictly about my train of thinking here, I'm not talking for anybody else, not on the video team either).
To me personally though, I don't think it is much of a problem to have both the part that is objective (the naming of the different steps) and one that is Yulias opinion. One doesn't lose value because of the other to me. And while the bullet point awarding is of course her opinion, I think it is presented with a lot of reasoning and at least somewhat backed up by clearly pointing out the transitions into the jumps and such. In the end, people are of course still welcome to disagree and if you think a bullet point is awarded wrong, you are welcome to point that out and state your opinion.
But we don't want to make the 'underscored' argument
And I agree re the Rippon point and how you assess that in the bullet points. There are IMO still quite a few things were the GOE guidelines should be clearer. And then of course there are still instances were things are subjective - when exactly is a jump big enough to count as big? Was that jump 'effortless'? Regarding these questions, we are reaching the 'comparing to others' point, because a lot of personal standards are fine, as long as they are consistent between skaters. But as for why the video is the way it is, I'll refer to the first part of my post
An impressive amount of work went into this video, so hats off to the people who worked on it.
The way it presented the GOE scores was a bit confusing. It first presents the GOE that the creators of the video believe that Yuzuru should have gotten on the element (though they don't label their opinions as an opinion--that's what makes it confusing), followed by the GOE that he actually got, followed by what the maximum GOE is (these two are labeled as such). Since the GOE that the creators propose is typically higher than what he actually got, the video makes the case that he was underscored, even though it presents itself as a "celebration" video. It seems like it's trying to have its cake and eat it too. It's a celebration video? An objective, educational video? A video arguing that Hanyu is underscored?
It has a lot of valuable, educational skating information about Yuzuru's program, but the video loses the stance of complete objectivity by inserting its argument on what Hanyu's GOE should've been. It would have been equally enjoyable, and perhaps less open to criticism, had it kept the opinion part on the GOE out of the video, or labeled those scores as the opinions of the creators of the video.
Thank you for your opinion on this. Regarding the GOE and the assessment of bullet points, I would like to mention first that the person who did that was Yulia (who did all of that analysis completely by herself!). The group who then put it into a video is a different one, although of course we asked for her permission and she checked the video. I see where you are coming from when you say the GOE grading isn't objective, but at least for me, it's starts out with the fact that I didn't want to leave out some of Yulias work in the video. If we got the permission to work with her analysis, I personally wanted to use the complete one (and I'm talking strictly about my train of thinking here, I'm not talking for anybody else, not on the video team either).
To me personally though, I don't think it is much of a problem to have both the part that is objective (the naming of the different steps) and one that is Yulias opinion. One doesn't lose value because of the other to me. And while the bullet point awarding is of course her opinion, I think it is presented with a lot of reasoning and at least somewhat backed up by clearly pointing out the transitions into the jumps and such. In the end, people are of course still welcome to disagree and if you think a bullet point is awarded wrong, you are welcome to point that out and state your opinion.
Yeah, I don't think one can make the "underscored" argument by looking at the program in isolation. He does have a lot of content that most of us who watch might miss. However, if the person did the same for Patrick's program, would we see that Patrick has more or less content? Also, Hanyu's jumps are not only assessed by the GOE bullets, but also the overall quality of the element. For example, in his 3A-2T, he Rippons the 2T so there is a air position variation there. Should judges assess that the same as if he Rippon'ed the 3A instead? That would be more difficult, and somehow would need to factor in to the scoring.
But we don't want to make the 'underscored' argument
And I agree re the Rippon point and how you assess that in the bullet points. There are IMO still quite a few things were the GOE guidelines should be clearer. And then of course there are still instances were things are subjective - when exactly is a jump big enough to count as big? Was that jump 'effortless'? Regarding these questions, we are reaching the 'comparing to others' point, because a lot of personal standards are fine, as long as they are consistent between skaters. But as for why the video is the way it is, I'll refer to the first part of my post