Chen vs. Wagner Judging

[largeman]

Jackie Wong is constantly wrong on this subject, that's not something worth quoting.

I am so with you on this. I roll my eyes whenever I see Jackie Wong's real-time tech calls (in practice or competition) being touted as authoritative.

 

[bobbob]

Components scores are should be what we're talking about, as the most subjective and most prone to judging bias. In the LONG, I actually do think Karen got the harsher side of calls (though I can't pinpoint specific calls I disagree with). But Ashley should have had a 10 point PCS buffer over Chen (as opposed to 3 point deficit)that would easily put her in 3rd, even if up to 3-4 URs went in Karen's favor.

 

[labgoat]

Posted on Ashley Wagner's twitter is the video from John Wilson Blades...
it shows her long program practice with highlights of her jumps including the missed 3L-1/2 L- 3S Combo

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/949027459533496321

 

[labgoat]

Components scores are should be what we're talking about, as the most subjective and most prone to judging bias. In the LONG, I actually do think Karen got the harsher side of calls (though I can't pinpoint specific calls I disagree with). But Ashley should have had a 10 point PCS buffer over Chen (as opposed to 3 point deficit)that would easily put her in 3rd, even if up to 3-4 URs went in Karen's favor.

Both Tara & Johnny commented that Ashley's advantage was in the PCS.

 

[combinationspin]

Karen deserved third, no question. Ashley finally got the SS and transitions scores closer to what she put out.

It’s not about Ashley’s PCS being too low per se. It’s about them being too low in relation to Mirai and Bradie (and some more) who got a ‘Nationals’ boost while Ashley didn’t. Mirai and Bradie’s SS aren’t great, either, and Mirai’s program is quite empty and stone faced.

 

[Exposed]

I thought for a second that the OP was talking about nathan chen. lol #brainfart. anyways, karen deserved third over ashley.

 

[skatenewbie]

You simply don't know what you're talking about. This is exactly the gap there should be for an amazing element vs a mediocre element, an even larger gap actually.

There is nothing "suspicious" about Chen getting slightly higher scores on her footwork either, especially the very deserved gap on the ChSq.



No, it's the opposite. Chen got underrotation calls for multiple jumps that shouldn't have been called, whereas Wagner got credit for her questionable 3-3 in the LP. Chen was also given the harshest edge call on her Flip, while Ashley's Lutz was not. The tech panel did everything they could to hold Chen down, while giving Wagner benefit of the doubt.

Karen get harsh call but she get saved by PCS that are higher than Wagner, also higher 4 point than her international best PCS, while Wagner got 68 PCS which is not so different with her usual PCS internationally... Podium contenders get inflated PCS except Ashley and Mirai in SP, thats why she lost. If Karen didnt get inflated PCS Wagner will be 3rd.

 

[Globetrotter]

International panels also constantly call many of her jumps under-rotated, not just the final 3T. I trust those international panels / rockerskating's expertise over you. It is true that Rockerskating is a bit strict about under-rotations but he is right 90 percent of the time. When the under-rotations he calls aren't called by the judges there is usually an outcry like with Jason Brown's axel during the free skate.

And instead of watching yourself what the skater put out, you chose to refer to what was historically given as your supporting evidence? Oh my now I know why FS judging gets such a bad rep when even audience support reputation judging. The 3F and 3Lz didn’t deserve any <, those were blatantly wrong considering that Karen’s lutz has possibly the cleanest technique, clean pick and launch with little prerotation. The 3F is at most ! since there was no noticeable lean to the outside edge. Even without slo-Mo, it was clear enough that it was flat to inside edge on take off.

 

[quadrupleaxel15]

Chen is technically *that* better than Ashley, I don't see any argument there. She didn't skate to her full potential (she usually doesn't unfortunately) that's why they are this close in points. Most people (and Ashley herself) think that the PCS are wrong. I don't think it is as subjective as you make it to be, yes we have disagreements but they still can be discussed and the criteria can even be changed in the future based on those discussions.

I think that is exactly the reason why Ashley spoke the way she did. Before the competition all she thought was to work on her jumps and get those technical marks. She had better spins and I enjoyed her jumps a lot more than anything of hers post-Boston. She probably thought she made it (or at least has proven herself even if Karen wins with an incredible skate) for a minute there on the ice. Then sitting on that K&C she realizes that all her work was for nothing as she wasn't even going to get her proper component scores. She did not even know what Karen will do at that moment and she still knew something was wrong. I think everyone should know something is wrong when Ashley gets lower PCS than her TES. It simply doesn't make sense.

 

[icekiwi]

You simply don't know what you're talking about. This is exactly the gap there should be for an amazing element vs a mediocre element, an even larger gap actually.

There is nothing "suspicious" about Chen getting slightly higher scores on her footwork either, especially the very deserved gap on the ChSq.



No, it's the opposite. Chen got underrotation calls for multiple jumps that shouldn't have been called, whereas Wagner got credit for her questionable 3-3 in the LP. Chen was also given the harshest edge call on her Flip, while Ashley's Lutz was not. The tech panel did everything they could to hold Chen down, while giving Wagner benefit of the doubt.

I agree with 'Blades of Passion' here. Karen Chen is the better skater overall. I agree too that the Tech Panel was quite harsh on Karen Chen, they were quick to mark on the jumps they want to review and I mean they want to review just about all her jumps!! Karen Chen's Flip in my opinion was harshly marked.

Karen Chen's spins were far superior than Ashley's - speed, centering and flexibility. This is where ladies get their +GOEs. The footwork sequence, Karen had better edge quality and speed. Ashley, I feel, was unusually slow in this LP. Yes, 'Performance' marks are subjective (Ashley said/hinted in the media that she should get higher PCs), Ashley forgot, Karen Chen is a beautiful performer too.

The marks are correct here.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

She doesn't always get called (look at 2017 Worlds) and this competition was not those competitions you cite. She was concentrating very hard on that edge going into the jump and I could see the effort on keeping it more to the inside, there wasn't a blatant press to the outside.

She is not the jumper she was at 2017 Worlds.

That's like saying she didn't get called on her 3Z+3T at Worlds so any time she gets < called on it now (ie pretty much every time this season). She has an edge issue -- if they're calling it at Nationals when they're making efforts to boost her PCS I don't see why they would hold her back on tech unless it was merited.

Also technically speaking she could have been called on her 3S in her combo which in slow mo looked like it was UR. Wagner usually URs her 3-3 but it looked sufficient and was certainly more rotated than Karen's 3-3.

Anyways we'll see what the Olympic tech panel will do with her. But if she's getting 5+ tech calls (at home at Nationals when tech specs/judges are arguably the most lenient... see her PCS) then I'm not really expecting big things.

The rest of her skating is the best in the US IMO, but she technically doesn't cut it... at home or internationally.

 

[Mathman]

Step Sequences

Both Wagner and Chen received L3 in both SP and LP. In what is going to become a recurring theme, Chen scores ever slightly higher than Wagner does, every single time.

StSq in SP: Chen +0.14
StSq in LP: Chen +0.08
ChSq in LP: Chen +0.6

The conclusion is that this is a bit suspicious, ...

What is remotely suspicious about the fact that one skater consistently outscored another by a small amount?

The long story short is that despite exceeding or equalling Chen's levels on every spin, Wagner still lower scores than Chen on every single spin.

It seems to me like the natural conclusion would be that Chen is a somewhat better spinner. (?)

 

[IonGrey]

What is remotely suspicious about the fact that one skater consistently outscored another by a small amount?

For the sake of analogy, let's say you are flipping a coin over and over again. If heads keeps coming up, wouldn't you be suspicious?

Honestly that was a pretty crude analogy. Figure skating judging is nothing like a coin flip. But suppose you performed a study in which you randomly picked one of Karen's StSq and one of Ashley's StSq and compared them side by side, and you come to a conclusion that 60% of the time Karen's are better, 40% Ashley's are better. (I'm being generous here - neither of them are really known for having either fantastic or atrocious sequences) In nats, each of Karen's 3 sequences were judged higher than Ashley's. A simple calculation shows that this should only happen 20% of the time, right?

OK, maybe 20% isn't too terrible. That's like if you flip a coin twice and both times is heads. That could happen, right? Let's look at the spins. Karen is an amazing spinner but Wagner's been getting better, so maybe we can say that Karen's spins are better 80% of the time. Same story - Karen received higher scores in all 6 spins. That happens only 26% of the time. So, the chances of Karen getting higher scores in EVERY sequence and EVERY spin is a measly 5%. That's like flipping a coin 4, 5 times and getting heads every time.

And don't even mention the PCS scores.

 

[Mathman]

For the sake of analogy, let's say you are flipping a coin over and over again. If heads keeps coming up, wouldn't you be suspicious?

Honestly that was a pretty crude analogy. Figure skating judging is nothing like a coin flip.

I have to say that I find the last part more compelling than the first. Figure skating is, as you say, nothing like a coin flip. It is more like a foot race. Usain Bolt won 100 consecutive races. It seems like the most logical conclusion is that Bolt is faster than his rivals.

 

[medoroa]

OK, maybe 20% isn't too terrible. That's like if you flip a coin twice and both times is heads. That could happen, right? Let's look at the spins. Karen is an amazing spinner but Wagner's been getting better, so maybe we can say that Karen's spins are better 80% of the time. Same story - Karen received higher scores in all 6 spins. That happens only 26% of the time. So, the chances of Karen getting higher scores in EVERY sequence and EVERY spin is a measly 5%. That's like flipping a coin 4, 5 times and getting heads every time.

That's like saying skater A does a good jump 80% of the time and skater B does a good jump 20% of the time, therefore in every competition the points should fall out 80/20 for these two skaters, regardless of whether in a specific competition, B might have landed all their jumps and A had a splatfest. You can't apply statistics like that to single, specific instances.

Although if what you want to say is that GOE is as susceptible to reputation judging as PCS is, then I agree with you. It is! But not in this specific case, because Chen really did have better spins and spirals.

 

[evangeline]

I was not there in person, but I watched the replays on Youtube. I am relatively new to watching the sport so my judgement of height and distance is not great. So, for your comment about the 3-3s for SP i went back and watched everything again, multiple times, just to make sure I wasnt missing anything.

For Karen's 3-3, I agree with you that the 3Lz was prety much textbook in terms of height, distance.

For Wagner's 3F, this is the video I watched (other videos give a similar angle): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVPwOEd1iR8&t=69s

You will notice that the cameraman is right behind Wagner, so it's much harder to judge distance for her 3F. In terms of height, I did not feel that Karen was in the air for mcuh longer than Wagner, so no real difference there.

To me, Karen's 3Lz in the SP was clearly superior in terms of height and distance than Wagner's 3F on video. I've also seen both skaters live (though not at Nationals this year), and can confirm that Karen's lutz is generally quite impressive in terms of height and distance in person.

Your point about the 2-foot is absolutely correct though. Maybe my first example was not the best; what do you think about the disparity in GOEs for the other jumps?

Sure, I'll bite.

Long Program

Triple Triple: Wagner did 3F3T, Chen did 3Lz3T<. Wagner only received +0.70 GOE, Chen got away with a -0.50 GOE. I don't think I need to explain this any more; Wagner should have gotten at least +1, Chen should have gotten at least -1.

I think your disagreement with the scores for this particular comparison stems from a misunderstanding of how IJS scoring works. You note that Ashley should've received +1 GOE on her 3F-3T in the LP--and that's exactly what she received! If you look at the detailed protocols, Ashley received +1 GOE from seven out of the nine judges for that jumping pass. Judge 7 gave Ashley a 0, but that's balanced out by Judge 5, who gave her +2 GOE on the element. The reason why Ashley's GOE shows up as +0.07 even though she averaged +1 GOE from the judges on that element overall is because GOE is added/subtracted to an element's base value according to the ISU's Scale of Values--you can see how this works on the official Scale of Values chart on the ISU website.

Lutz: Both underrotated. However, Wagner had -1.6 GOE, Chen had -0.70 GOE.

Ashley not only obviously underrotated her 3Lz, but also two-footed it as well. You can clearly see Ashley's free leg touch down on the ice upon landing the 3Lz if you watch the replay at around 6:45 on this video, as well as the big hook on the landing.

Karen did not two-foot her 3Lz, and the underrotation was more borderline. The height, distance, and flow of Karen's 3Lz was superior to Ashley's 3Lz as well.

 

[Blades of Passion]

She is not the jumper she was at 2017 Worlds.

Every competition needs to be taken on its own but Karen's ability is apparent and the point was she doesn't get called all the time, as some are trying to make it sound like. Even more important is what the calls SHOULD be. Not just looking at wrong results on paper as you always do.

 

[FSGMT]

For the sake of analogy, let's say you are flipping a coin over and over again. If heads keeps coming up, wouldn't you be suspicious?

Honestly that was a pretty crude analogy. Figure skating judging is nothing like a coin flip. But suppose you performed a study in which you randomly picked one of Karen's StSq and one of Ashley's StSq and compared them side by side, and you come to a conclusion that 60% of the time Karen's are better, 40% Ashley's are better. (I'm being generous here - neither of them are really known for having either fantastic or atrocious sequences) In nats, each of Karen's 3 sequences were judged higher than Ashley's. A simple calculation shows that this should only happen 20% of the time, right?

OK, maybe 20% isn't too terrible. That's like if you flip a coin twice and both times is heads. That could happen, right? Let's look at the spins. Karen is an amazing spinner but Wagner's been getting better, so maybe we can say that Karen's spins are better 80% of the time. Same story - Karen received higher scores in all 6 spins. That happens only 26% of the time. So, the chances of Karen getting higher scores in EVERY sequence and EVERY spin is a measly 5%. That's like flipping a coin 4, 5 times and getting heads every time.

And don't even mention the PCS scores.

The thing is as simple as this: Karen's spins are WAY superior to Ashley's, whose are often slow and with worse positions, number of revolutions, control etc. Always. What's wrong with their always receiving higher GOE?
The same goes for the step sequences: Ashley doesn't have speed while performing them, her edges are almost all flat or "flattish" (she even joked about it herself in an interview IIRC), they don't show neither flow nor ease nor great body control. Karen's are better in all these bullet points aspects. Always. What's wrong with their receiving always better GOE?

The interesting thing is that I tried to judge the competition using The Figure Skating Judge app, and the result I got was not only Karen in third, but by a greater margin than the real one, even if I sincerely hoped Ashley would be there. So I've got no excuses at all to defend her, she simply deserved that :confused2: