CBC's comments on Alina Zagitova

largeman said:

I understand what you are saying regarding definition of take-off foot, pre-rotation, etc. Let's not dwell on definitions but focus on the takeoff technique and the jump revolutions actually completed in the air -

3T example #1
3T example #2

Do you think the takeoffs of these two jumps are the same?

Click to expand...

I'm not defending Medvedeva obviously pre-rotating more than Kim, but also compare the landings of the jumps and it looks to me like Medvedeva lands obviously pretty much backwards whereas Kim's is not as certain for me (it's rotated sufficiently, just not as rotated on the landing as Med is rotated). Overall though Kim's technique on the toe is superior, and her net rotation in the air is more than Medvedeva's.

Again judges/the system cares more about the actual landings more than the takeoff.

drivingmissdaisy said:

So your argument is that reputation judging is a good thing. A skater's PCS marks should be based solely on what they earned previously and not how other skaters in the same event are scored.

Click to expand...

1, my argument is that Zagi's rise of PCS is singular case NOT based on her merits.
2, as for on the day of performance and compare to others skaters on the same day. I guess all that live report from live audiences, as well as commentators as well as fans watched on TV, beg to differ that Zagi performance is the best of the day as her PCS indicated.

yyyskate said:

1, my argument is that Zagi's rise of PCS is singular case NOT based on her merits.

Click to expand...

Well, what is it based on then?

drivingmissdaisy said:

Well, what is it based on then?

Click to expand...

please, first read my post and understand what I mean.
This will be my last reply to you regarding this, my post included all the info to support my argument that Zagi's sudden rise in PCS is anomaly which does not apply to other skaters with similar situation , and I believe general readers could easily understand what I mean and it is clear and obvious.
Based on your reputation on this board, I think discussion with you about this is futile, so I will not engage.

Viiktoruu said:

It does have the left foot in the ice - it's a toe pick assisted jump, but the foot which has the toe pick in the ice to ensure takeoff is NOT the takeoff foot.

Click to expand...

BOTH feet are takeoff feet in toepick jumps. That's how they work. The non-toepick foot is where the takeoff starts, but the skater leaves the ice last on the toepick foot and it NEEDS to be taken into consideration when determining jump rotation. Spinning yourself around the ice on your toepick makes the jump easier, it makes the takeoff happen later.

Viiktoruu said:

Apply the opposite logic and freeze frame other skaters (and I mean really famous ones - Yuna, Yuzu - technical masters) and tell me their takeoff is not the same? Or are they all underrotated all the time?

Click to expand...

Many skaters, especially Yuna and Yuzuru, pre-rotate FAR less on their takeoffs than what the "Medvedeva school" of jumping does. Hundreds of examples have been shown over the years and I'm happy someone posted a Yuna comparison earlier in the thread so I don't have to waste more time on it. That wasn't one of Yuna's best executions either and still you can see the superior quality and how much better the takeoff is.

Some skaters have better technique than others. Sometimes Michelle Kwan prerotated (eg her lutz) but it wasn't really reflected in her technical mark because it was a triple for all intents and purposes. I do agree that prerotation is poor technique and should be reflected in lower GOE... but not an outright < call.

Many many skaters (esp ladies) are in the "Med" jumping camp than the Kim jumping camp.

The landing IMO is the most critical point where the greatest scrutiny should be. But of course YMMV.

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

Again judges/the system cares more about the actual landings more than the takeoff.

Click to expand...

LOL, the "actual landings" mean nothing without first establishing a takeoff point! A skate can land in ANY direction and it being "backwards" or not is entirely relative to where the jump took off!

Imagine if spin rotations were only counted at the point when a skater starts getting into a position, instead of when they actually achieve it. Let's just call all sit spins as starting when the skater is halfway down in the knee or call all Beillman's as starting when the skate is next to the skater's head, because that makes so much sense!

I've said it so many times now, but it's like looking at a race where people start in different locations. If two people are supposed to both run 1 mile and see who can do it fastest, then it would not be fair to allow one person to start 1/4 of a mile later and declare them the winner for reaching the 1 mile endpoint first. Of course that person will reach the "finish line" first, because they only actually had to run 3/4 of a mile, not a full mile!

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

Many many skaters (esp ladies) are in the "Med" jumping camp than the Kim jumping camp.

Click to expand...

That's because the scoring system and judges have allowed it to happen!! Several decades ago, Triple jumps were absolutely NOT executed like Medvedeva does them! Pretty much ALL of the skaters jumped more like Yu-Na Kim!

You're wrong about saying the technical marks in 6.0 did not reflect the somewhat smaller jumps of Kwan. They absolutely did. Both times that Kwan won Worlds with 7 Triples including a 3-3 combo, the highest tech mark she received from any judge was 5.8! The judges clearly left room for the higher jumps of Slutskaya and this was also reflected in their SP technical mark.

Also, Kwan did not pre-rotate her 3Toe combo like Medvedeva does. Yes she used the "turn to forward on the toepick" technique for the Lutz and Flip that so many people use these days, but at this point that is simply unavoidable as an acceptable technique. Despite doing that, Kwan didn't twist her body into the rotation as much as others do and she remainded straight in the air. She first jumped and THEN rotated. Those issues can be handled in the GOE scores, although the rules should also provide extra allowance when counting rotation for better takeoffs on the Lutz and Flip. It's way harder to jump like that and it needs to be taken into consideration, because this IS the textbook technique and the sport should not be diminishing this technique as less desirable.

Blades of Passion said:

LOL, the "actual landings" mean nothing without first establishing a takeoff point! A skate can land in ANY direction and it being "backwards" or not is entirely relative to where the jump took off!

Imagine if spin rotations were only counted at the point when a skater starts getting into a position, instead of when they actually achieve it. Let's just call all sit spins as starting when the skater is halfway down in the knee or call all Beillman's as starting when the skate is next to the skater's head, because that makes so much sense!

I've said it so many times now, but it's like looking at a race where people start in different locations. If two people are supposed to both run 1 mile and see who can do it fastest, then it would not be fair to allow one person to start 1/4 of a mile later and declare them the winner for reaching the 1 mile endpoint first. Of course that person will reach the "finish line" first, because they only actually had to run 3/4 of a mile, not a full mile!

Click to expand...

You're really comparing apples and oranges and watermelons (watermelons being the race analogy) here.

Jumps have always had leeway in technique and called rotation because no two skaters really jump exactly the same. The way it's standardized is to look at the landing. Judges don't have time to look at every single jumping pass and pull out a protractor. Of course, those skaters with better technique should be rewarded for it, but it's not like there were World champions who didn't have technical flaws.

Let's be honest, if the ladies today were truly scrutinized for < and << due to pre-rotation and rotation on their landings, we'd see more tech calls than there were at Skate Canada. Most of the ladies simply do not have the strength and physique that the guys do which allow them to vault higher. They would go back to stroking around if they saw the judges were penalizing them harshly, to ensure they get the speed/height/rotation. I don't really consider Zagitova one of the higher vaulters either, and I think if she had a more balanced program, she would be less likely to fall or UR her jumps.

There are not a ton of skaters. from this era and the past, who can do high, unquestionably rotated jumps AND do intricate programs (and the programs of today are much more intricate than decades ago). and as consistently as Medvedeva or (tentatively, consistently) Zagitova.

Blades of Passion said:

That's because the scoring system and judges have allowed it to happen!! Several decades ago, Triple jumps were absolutely NOT executed like Medvedeva does them! Pretty much ALL of the skaters jumped more like Yu-Na Kim!

You're wrong about saying the technical marks in 6.0 did not reflect the somewhat smaller jumps of Kwan. They absolutely did. Both times that Kwan won Worlds with 7 Triples including a 3-3 combo, the highest tech mark she received from any judge was 5.8! The judges clearly left room for the higher jumps of Slutskaya and this was also reflected in their SP technical mark.

Also, Kwan did not pre-rotate her 3Toe combo like Medvedeva does. Yes she used the "turn to forward on the toepick" technique for the Lutz and Flip that so many people use these days, but at this point that is simply unavoidable as an acceptable technique. Despite doing that, Kwan didn't twist her body into the rotation as much as others do and she remainded straight in the air. She first jumped and THEN rotated. Those issues can be handled in the GOE scores, although the rules should also provide extra allowance when counting rotation for better takeoffs on the Lutz and Flip. It's way harder to jump like that and it needs to be taken into consideration, because this IS the textbook technique and the sport should not be diminishing this technique as less desirable.

Click to expand...

Several decades ago skaters stroked around the rink and motored into jumps, so OF COURSE they would jump higher and more fully rotated. Things have gotten harder, especially with skaters having to do footwork with actual difficult turn incorporate (even if some sequences go overboard), or spins with more than 5 rotations. In the case of Zagitova, she's challenging herself to do all jumping passes in the 2nd half -- something skaters decades ago wouldn't have dared to do, or been capable of doing (maybe a powerhouse like Ito, or a mentally tough one like Kristi), even if they stripped a program of all the transitions and spin positions.

I'm sure Medvedeva would be able to jump more like Kim or some (definitely not "pretty much ALL") of the stronger-jumping skaters from decades ago, if she didn't put such difficult entrances before her jumps.

Re: Michelle compared to Med:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzwg2cxpPq0 Michelle also used the "turn to forward" on her 3Ts. Some of them were better than others, and her 3-3 technique certainly improved over the years as that video demonstrates (as Medvedeva could too, what, with this being her 3rd senior season), and I loves me some Michelle Kwan, but girl had her technical issues even if most of us consider her flawless (which is to say, she's almost flawless ). She certainly does not have the jump technique or ability that Kim had.

The judges at 2001 Worlds left room for Slutskaya not because they had marked down Kwan's jumps but because they knew Slutskaya had two 3-3 combos and harder ones, a 3S+3L and a 3Z+3L, than Kwan at that.

In 2000 Worlds, Kwan was 3rd after the SP, and was first to skate in the final flight, so the judges obviously gave her clean skate only max 5.8, leaving room to see what others - namely, Slutskaya and Butyrskaya. who had beaten her in qualifying/SP - would do. Even the Eurosport guys knew it, and alluded to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFNDDlYSoXM#t=4m55s Had she gone last, she absolutely would have scored in the 5.9's.

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

I don't really consider Zagitova one of the higher vaulters either, and I think if she had a more balanced program, she would be less likely to fall or UR her jumps.]

Click to expand...

So, you think if Zagitova had more balanced programs, she would have higher quality in her execution right?

Then what’s the point of quantity and quality balance then? I am just puzzled. Jumps in the beginning of the programs are often bigger with better execution, thus should get higher GOE than jumps in the second half with poorer quality right?

The way I see the judging right now is, judges keep showing jumps in the second half of the programs with almost same GOE as jumps in the first half even though the execution is poor. And jumps in the second half already got 10% bonus. Just some kind of too much benefits for average quality.

I'm sure Medvedeva would be able to jump more like Kim or some (definitely not "pretty much ALL") of the stronger-jumping skaters from decades ago, if she didn't put such difficult entrances before her jumps.

Click to expand...

This is another issue though. Which of these options below should get highest GOE:
1) good jumps with correct technique with no transitions
2) average jumps with average technique with a lot of transitions
3) good jumps with correct technique with a lot of transitions

The reality is judges give huge GOE for all 3 of the above options as long as the skaters are their favorites.

Then what’s the point of getting correct technique and doing many transitions? Like at all?

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

You're really comparing apples and oranges and watermelons (watermelons being the race analogy) here.

The way it's standardized is to look at the landing. Judges don't have time to look at every single jumping pass and pull out a protractor.

Click to expand...

If you think it's comparing apples and oranges then I think you need to learn more. Try for yourself to stand on the floor and try to jump straight up and then turn 3 times. Then try it by reaching back with your left foot and pivoting around on the floor and jumping. It's very different.

You can't say "it's standardized by only looking at the landing", the judges already have to determine some kind of starting point for the jump, otherwise there's no way of deciding if it was 1/4 short or not. The way they determine this starting point and count the rotation is simply flawed, there's no standard to begin with, a different technical panel can yield a different result.

Judges DO have time to look at jumps in this way, why do you keep insisting on this silly "it would take too long" argument? The entire replays of the jumps are already shown! If any educated viewer can see the takeoff and landing during the replay and determine the rotation of a jump, then the tech panel should be able to as well. What sense does it even make to look only at the landing? It only takes a few seconds longer to look at takeoffs and these are sometimes already reviewed for takeoff edge! It would be very simple to just look at every questionable jump from start to finish, the tech panels just need to be educated correctly, and the rules need to be updated and made clear.

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

Let's be honest, if the ladies today were truly scrutinized for < and << due to pre-rotation and rotation on their landings, we'd see more tech calls than there were at Skate Canada.

Click to expand...

No we wouldn't. The calls have been all over the place the past decade and many are given out that should not have been, since the judges don't examine the rotations better (or understand how to) and give some calls simply because they think something looked "off" in the landing...or flat out because of reputation/politics. With a clear, full standard and assessment of the jumps, then this would be improved. The calls wouldn't increase in number, rather they would be shifted - some skaters would be getting called less and others more.

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

Most of the ladies simply do not have the strength and physique that the guys do which allow them to vault higher. They would go back to stroking around if they saw the judges were penalizing them harshly, to ensure they get the speed/height/rotation. There are not a ton of skaters, from this era and the past, who can do high, unquestionably rotated jumps AND do intricate programs (and the programs of today are much more intricate than decades ago).

Click to expand...

The "intricacy" of today's programs is not something that's always desirable to begin with. Lots of meaningless busy work. If the ladies went back to building up more speed for jumps and focusing on beautiful expression and held out moves, then GOOD. That's the skating more people want to see to begin with! Adding intricacy can be good too, but it needs to serve the program, and at the very least people should be able to score equally as well for "less intrincate" programs that display better jumps. It can be a personal choice which direction to focus on more, with everyone of course hoping to show good qualities in all areas.

Someone like Medvedeva would not be getting tons of < calls if the pre-rotations were examined, she is still within the 1/4 turn mark a large amount of the time, and it's more about making her be honest and pay attention to the issue. She has gotten lazy at times with the 3Toe combos and been given credit when it was not deserved. The GOE is what should be getting more affected with her. She should absolutely never be getting +3 for any of her jump elements and not as many +2's either.

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

Re: Michelle compared to Med:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzwg2cxpPq0 Michelle also used the "turn to forward" on her 3Ts.

Click to expand...

Turning to forward is normal on the 3Toe, Medvedeva (and many others these days) go past that point. It's the extra turn on the ice that needs to be cracked down on. For any jump, more than 1/2 turn entrance needs to be held against the landing point.

Ender said:

The way I see the judging right now is, judges keep showing jumps in the second half of the programs with almost same GOE as jumps in the first half even though the execution is poor. And jumps in the second half already got 10% bonus. Just some kind of too much benefits for average quality.

Click to expand...

I can't agree with you. And I have a factual counterargument. Zagitova has a flip. The very same panel gave her +1.5 GOE in the short and +1.1 GOE in the long. Yes, it's just 0.4 difference. But if you extrapolate it on 7 jumping passes it's already 2.8 - and this is serious. Moreover, her flip goes at the end of SP so that it is around 2 minute mark in the program. I think her rippon style flip is the most beautiful jump of hers. If she started with it with fresh legs she could have +2 GOE rather than +1.1

So, it is a trade-off between 10% and extra GOE. Of course, the prize for backloading is higher but risks are higher as well. On a second thought even the higher prize is arguable. If we are talking about flip the difference between +2 and +1.1 is higher than the backloading prize. But the idea is to push the quality of jumps in the second half. And +2 means all 3 GOE which is theoretical. However, Osmond's style +1.7 will mean indifference between GOE bonus and 10% second half bonus (if GOE is +1.1).

^ If we really do the math, I think that we get a different perspective anyway. Alina gets about four and a half extra points for putting all her jumps in the second half. If she put only half of her jumps in the second half she would get a bonus of half that. Why are we getting so exercised and irate over two points? There are many other issues to address in the IJS and its implementation that have greater moment.

[email protected] said:

I can't agree with you. And I have a factual counterargument. Zagitova has a flip. The very same panel gave her +1.5 GOE in the short and +1.1 GOE in the long. Yes, it's just 0.4 difference. But if you extrapolate it on 7 jumping passes it's already 2.8 - and this is serious. Moreover, her flip goes at the end of SP so that it is around 2 minute mark in the program. I think her rippon style flip is the most beautiful jump of hers. If she started with it with fresh legs she could have +2 GOE rather than +1.1

So, it is a trade-off between 10% and extra GOE. Of course, the prize for backloading is higher but risks are higher as well. On a second thought even the higher prize is arguable. If we are talking about flip the difference between +2 and +1.1 is higher than the backloading prize. But the idea is to push the quality of jumps in the second half. And +2 means all 3 GOE which is theoretical. However, Osmond's style +1.7 will mean indifference between GOE bonus and 10% second half bonus (if GOE is +1.1).

Click to expand...

None of Zagitova’s jumps are super beautiful or excellent to get +2 across the board, let alone +3. What I am trying to say is, her jump quality is ok but not so good to get all the GOE she is getting. They’re average in quality, with transitions in and out they’re still average, in the second half of the programs make it harder ok but she already got 10% bonus. Why even bonus in the GOE, that’s double the bonus.

GOE are not supposed to be generous on a skater just because they jump more difficult jumps in the second half. GOE are supposed to be about the quality regardless of the placement of the elements.

criticism is ok, comment about bathroom is not.

Manitou said:

I like Zagitova and I am not a very big fan of Canadian media, but people complaining that we should not overly critique a child because of her age make no sense. Alina is underage, true, but she is competing against seniors on the highest level, so she must conform to the same rules as everybody else on her level. And everybody is exposed to the same critique, including most harsh and possibly undeserved. People watch, people talk and people say different things. That's the reality of anybody exposed to publicity.

Click to expand...

I understand this point. But what I don't like is commentators who think that they, not the skaters, are the show. "Look how catty and witty I am." No thank you.

Mathman said:

I understand this point. But what I don't like is commentators who think that they, not the skaters, are the show. "Look how catty and witty I am." No thank you.

Click to expand...

and yet Dick Button seems to get a pass for that?

Mathman said:

I understand this point. But what I don't like is commentators who think that they, not the skaters, are the show. "Look how catty and witty I am." No thank you.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter who is witty or catty, the point is the show must sell to a non-expert common public. I haven't watched that particular commentary, so I don't know what the drama is about, but a boring and overly PC commentary will not rate well among those viewers.
You remember when fs was most popular in history? In 1994.

Unrelated to the subject, but an interesting idea came to me yesterday on how to spice up figure skating. I was watching alpine skiing combination where technical slalom skiers compete directly against downhill skiers. It's my favorite skiing competition to watch. Why don't we do it in FS? A combination of pairs and dance. Tarasova/Morozov vs Papadakis/Cizeron. First pairs FS and then FD the next day. For both. And then add points and give medals. In Olympics.
I really want P/C and V/M to do axels and lutzes, and T/M and S/H twizzles.

Tonichelle said:

and yet Dick Button seems to get a pass for that?

Click to expand...

But heck it's Uncle Dick, he gets a pass, but be damned anyone else criticize a system, or use humour as a vehicle in their broadcast.

Tonichelle said:

and yet Dick Button seems to get a pass for that?

Click to expand...

Dick Button does NOT get a pass from me!!! He was downright rude when speaking about Maria Butyrskaya and was even worse to Elena Liashenko at her final Olympics.

Listen to his commentary of Liashenko's SP..........I wasn't even a big fan of hers but, I thought he was just mean. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9Jyl6dXaiM