Can you name a single competition in which Lambiel and Buttle skated as poorly as Chan did in the LP and still won?
After rewatching Patrick's and Denis' free skates, I do not change my initial notion that PChiddy fully deserves his title. If anyone received the most inflated score and was most held up by the judges in this competition, it's Denis not Patrick.
2005 Worlds LP was pretty darn close - for BOTH Lambiel and Buttle in comparison to Chan.
Lambiel (1A, 4T-3T, 3L, 2A, 4T, 2Z-3T, 1F, 3S-2T -- 2 quads, 4 clean triples - no 3F/3Z/3A) didn't fare much better than Chan (4T-3T, 4T, 3Z-fall, 3A<fall, 3L, 3F-3S stepout, 2Z-2T, 2A -- 2 quads, 3 clean triples). Hard to say who was technically worse -- Lambiel didn't fall twice, but he popped two triples (the axel and flip) to just singles, and turned two triples (the axel and lutz) to doubles. And unlike Chan, he actually WON the freeskate in spite of 4 major errors.
Actually the one most gifted by PCS by the judges was Takahashi (8th best TES in the SP, 13th best TES in the LP... and 6th overall).
I will meet you halfway. Patrick's skating does have a quality that never abandons him even when things go wrong.
But Patrick himself said (in his interview for Icenetwork) that falling saps your energy. I think that happened here. After the first fall, the first half of the ensuing free skating sequence was not as fluid or energetic as we expect. Finally he got back in synch, only to fall again. The last half of the program petered out considerably. And unfortunately the lack of focus and attack made the music seem increasing dreary as the program wore on. I do not agree that he was able to "put his full emotion into the program." Quite the contrary.
He did get a 9.50 in the free program, though. The same judge gave him component scores of 9.50, 9.25, 9.50, 9.50, and 9.50.
Patrick's total PCS for his record setting short program was 45.67. His unfactored PCS for the long was 43.50. Don't you see something out of whack here?
Still not deserving 9.5 for PE for that many visible errors (OK, so it WASN'T a 9.75, but STILL, that mark is totally off the wall for the EXECUTION of that program).
Why do people think that PCS must match TES? It doesn't have to. It SHOULDN'T have to. In the SP, for instance, Takahashi may have had 8th best TES, but he skated his heart out in that program and got a standing ovation. His low TES was because of URs, which were barely perceptible in real time and didn't detract from the overall performance. As for the LP, his TES was low but he sure as heck didn't deserve the 13th best PCS!
It's important to watch the actual performance to see whether PCS was a "gift" instead of just looking at TES. And yes, I think Ten was definitely gifted in PCS. But the judges had backed themselves into that corner by gifting Chan in PCS as well.
Actually the one most gifted by PCS by the judges was Takahashi (8th best TES in the SP, 13th best TES in the LP... and 6th overall).
Can you explain this:
Yes. The IJS is not working out.
^^ LOL at the desperate attempts to prove that Patrick deserved the title. So, Chan was brilliant, his falls and mistakes didn't affect the program, his excellence in falling was just beautiful and justified his high pcs, 2 points higher the any other guy, and 4 points higher than Takhashi who is a brilliant performer and artist (who also made mistakes). Ten on the other hand, was the slow, concentrated one and didn't really perform?
Seriously, keep your delusions, there's nothing one can do about it.
It's working out as it was designed though - people point to the numbers and say, see, this guy SHOULD have won, the numbers say so!
Right. The artist who has to delute his program for the big jumps. Seriously, Takahashi jumps out of his performance often enough if you are not blindly worshiping him. Now who is delusional and desperate? I'm perfectly content.
It's working out as it was designed though - people point to the numbers and say, see, this guy SHOULD have won, the numbers say so!
Isn't that the objectivity?!
They're just subjective numbers for GOE and PCS like 5.1 or 5.5 or 6.0 was a number in the old system. :yes:
No one can avoid subjectivity completely in anything involved with performing art. The scores are not all based on GOE and PCS. BV is pretty objective.