Berandor
lunatic
Just reposting this from the old thread, as I found it very helpful, and don't want it to be missed...
[...]
(My credentials -- I am not a judge, but I have been a low-level competitive skater in both ice and roller skating, and I would consider myself a knowledgable fan. I know judges and have discussed judging issues with them in the past.)
[...]
I haven't seen this skate yet -- it's waiting on the TiVO. But it was a CLOSE decision, folks. One judge changing his/her mind would have changed the outcome. You can't blame this on Eastern Bloc bias (unless the French joined the Eastern Bloc when I wasn't looking). It is true that European judges often value things differently from North American judges -- for example, they put a higher premium on the speed of the skating. But I don't see this as a crime.
Here, having not seen the program yet, are some things that might have made the difference, from a skater's perspective:
* Speed. Which team was faster? This is notoriously difficult to judge on TV. It may have been obvious to those sitting in the arena, though! Having been to competitions that I later watched on tv, I can tell you that speed really doesn't show up on camera at all.
* Difficulty. The consensus I've seen from folks I trust is that the Russians' program had a higher level of difficulty. Sale and Pelletier went back to an old program for the Olympics, one that is really dramatic and fun to watch, but one that is less difficult than the program they were using earlier in the year.
* Balance. Not whether they fall down all the time, but whether the program is well-balanced. For example, some skaters front-load their programs, putting all the difficult moves at the beginning and then coasting through the rest.
* Unison. This is part of the presentation score. I'm looking at the scores right now, and it looks like the presentation scores are what really made the decision. Keep in mind that despite the yammerings of commentators who should know better (yes, I mean you, Scott Hamilton), "presentation" does not mean "artistry." It does not mean costumes, or who has the best music, or whether the program is brand-new, either. Judges aren't supposed to pay attention to any of that. From the FAQ I linked to above: Presentation reflects "the choreography, flow, and balance of the program, the ability of the skaters to interpret their chosen music, and other factors such as making good use of the ice surface, skating with speed, sureness, and effortless carriage, and unison for pair skaters." It does not reflect the emotion of their skating, how much the fans like them, etc.
I could go on, but I think it would drive everyone nuts.
Now that I'm actually looking at the scores, though -- wow, that was close. Go look at them yourselves. The actual, judge by judge scores. I really don't think the fix was in here. I'm really looking forward to seeing the skating for myself -- sounds like it was a good event.
[...]
OK, I've finally seen the event. But I haven't had time to read any news articles on the possible collusion, so I can't really comment on that, with the exception of pointing out that even if the French judge was dirty and had decided to collude, it might be that he or she would have chosen the Russians anyway, based on the way they actually skated when it came right down to it. So even if there was collusion, it doesn't mean that the Russians wouldn't have won anyway. I'll explain why I think so, below.
[...]
Anyway, I just watched the two programs multiple times each, taking notes. Here are the notes I made (edited for MeFi). Bear in mind that while I am a skater, I am not a pairs skater, so I don't know the names and specifics of the particular lifts they do, though I do know the other elements.
Berezhnaia & Sikharulidze:
* Seemed to have good speed. Hard to tell on camera.
* Their extension and carriage were excellent. Moves were finished, right to the fingertips. (This is very Russian, btw -- that strong ballet influence.) Their body positions were gorgeous. (This goes in the presentation mark.)
* Anton stepped out of the double axel landing, but his recovery was seamless. He lost no time at all, and they did the following jump in the sequence in perfect unison. That was possibly the best recovery of a screw-up I have ever seen a pairs team make. The error in the jump landing would affect the technical score, but the presentation score would be unaffected because the presentation was not affected by the error.
* They had some wonderful original positions in their death spiral.
* There were no "dead spots" in their program. They kept moving, constantly, not stopping to rest or emote. They skated closely together and had lots of different steps and directions in between the big elements. This is overall a high level of difficulty.
* Overall, their unison was stunning. Very nice. (This goes in the presentation score.)
* My final notes for this one: "Wow, excellent classical program! Surprised at the comments of Bezic/ Hamilton." I didn't see the bobbles that they saw. (I also have no clue what the "four errors" were that Sandra Bezic referred to later.)
Sale & Pelletier
* Unison good, but noticeable unison errors in places
* Speed -- hard to tell. I thought it might have been slower, but I couldn't tell without two TVs side by side.
* Several places in the program where they stopped and emoted on the ice. This is showy, but it's not skating. (It also gives them a chance to rest a bit, which the other skaters didn't do.)
* Their extension was not as good -- I noticed especially that Jamie's arms were floppy and droopy in some sections. Perhaps that was intentional for the "Love Story" theme -- but if so, that was a bad decision. That is the kind of thing European judges are known for being sticklers on.
* Lifts possibly seemed easier
* Final notes: "Very, very nice program. Announcers idiots."
So, to my own shock (I like Sale & Pelletier, and really wanted them to win), I think the decision is fully explainable by the defined rules and standards of the sport. S&P did have higher technical scores, and that was probably justified by the cleanness of the program, though the lack of difficulty did hurt them here. Had they skated a more difficult program that clean, they probably would have won for sure. But the presentation mark is B&S' strength, and they didn't falter in that area, not a bit. I think, in the presentation mark, they did beat the Canadians.
It was close, though. I think you could justify either team winning this. We saw two amazing programs here. We should be happy to see that level of skating.
I wonder, though, why the announcers and crowd were so certain that the Canadians won. Bias? Maybe. It's not like I haven't seen that at skating events before. And you can skate an amazing crowd-pleasing program that doesn't deserve to win for a number of reasons, but the crowd will love it anyway -- so just because the crowd preferred B&S doesn't necessarily mean that their program was better. Still, I wish I could have been there to see it in person.
Even if there was collusion, I don't feel that the result was so obviously unjust to cause the uproar we are hearing now -- unless what they saw in SLC was completely different from what I saw on TV. (And remember, I saw it multiple times, with instant replay and slo-mo.)
----
One more thing --
The announcers should be ashamed. They didn't tell us a damn thing useful. (What elements were included in the programs? Did one team do more elements than the other? Why did you call one program more difficult -- what made it that way? What is this "one by one" scoring Scott Hamilton referred to? What were the "four mistakes" Sandra Bezic noted in the Russians' program? etc. They don't answer any of these questions -- no WONDER people are confused!)
I am disgusted, and this is only the first skating event of the Olys. I dread the men's and women's finals.
Now, off to read the news articles about collusion... (sigh)
[...]
Oh, hey, one more thing I forgot to mention. Apparently Sale & Pelletier had an illegal lift in their program -- his hand was on her thigh instead of her hip. So they weren't quite perfect in what they did. From a spectator's perspective, who cares. But it does matter to a judge, perhaps.
