Not surprisingly, my last post drew some reactions. Not many, of course, mine is a small blog, but many of those who have read it have enjoyed what I have written. Many, not all. And one of the comments that arrived confirms for the umpteenth time that those who are unable to argue against a statement that they do not like, react misleading the subject.
That comment came in reaction to this post, a post in which I mentioned the jump not executed by Hanyu and the two falls, but in which openly spoke of something else.
I know what sport is. In figure skating skaters sometimes fall. Hanyu falling in the 2014 Sochi free skate is something that happened. Did he win because Patrick Chan threw the competition away? Maybe. Just as Hanyu happened to fall, Chan fall too. No, Chan didn’t received a deduction for his fall (Chan’s 3A was not so different from Hanyu’s 3F), but he did more mistakes than Hanyu. Both made mistakes, but it was a good competition. Chan and Hanyu (and the other 27 skaters present at the competition) faced off fairly, and the best skaters of the two days won.
SkatingScores helps us easily to see many things. And the score with which Hanyu won Olympic gold, at that time, was a high score, which only Patrick Chan (twice) and Hanyu himself (once) had been able to surpass. I canceled three scores because they were established at the World Championship, which took place a month later. The score with which Chan won Olympic silver is almost 8 points higher than the one with which he had won world gold the year before.
Hanyu skated an extraordinary short program, but even the free skate, even with these mistakes, was not such a poor program. I remember that the free program of the 2013 World Championship was won by Denis Ten, who won silver in that competition and who won bronze in Sochi, with a score lower than Hanyu’s score in Sochi.
So yeah, Chan made mistakes, it happens, but Hanyu skated a really great short program and a good free program, the competition was fair and he deserved his gold.
It also happens that someone is injured, like Hanyu in PyeongChang, or that someone gets overwhelmed by the emotions of the event and commits disasters, like Nathan Chen in the short program of PyeongChang, or even runs into a hole in the ice and misses a jump, as happened to Hanyu in Beijing. These are all unpleasant situations, but they can happen to anyone, for whom no one is to blame, and which must be accepted. The problems are others.
Did Hanyu not perform the expected quadruple salchow in the short program? True, Hanyu did not perform the expected quadruple salchow in the short program. When he does it well, his he quadruple salchow is worth at least 14.00 points. But he didn’t to that salchow.
Hanyu paid the price for that missed salchow. As an hypothesis, we can add 14.00 points to his final score, even without looking at anything else, and then we can check the ranking, to see who is on the podium and who is not. Hanyu paid a (too) high a price for that salchow.
I highlighted not only that salchow who rightfully exit from the score, but also the lowest marks Hanyu received in the PCS. Let’s remember a detail. Introduction and Rondo Capriccioso is a masterpiece. Not even 4CC Chopin is at the same level. For how it is built, and for how Hanyu has interpreted it, it should not have received a single mark less than 9.50, yet most of the marks are lower, with two judges who even applied a roof in the components that, by rules, in this case it was not applicable.
Hanyu also fell twice in the free skate, first in the 4A attempt
and then on the 4S
Hanyu fell, and he paid the price for his mistakes.
I have no problem recognizing that he made mistakes. I’m not happy with it, but I’m aware of what he did and what he didn’t do, and I don’t deny the reality. As long as a skater makes a mistake, and the score he is given takes into account the mistakes, there is no problem.
Actually, I would have been a bit more strict in the PCS, but the judges lowered Hanyu’s score. The last time he had received a lower score in the PCS was at the 2019 National Championship, 89.72 points, when he had skated really badly. There he hadn’t just missed two jumps, that program had been a disaster. The last time he had received a lower PCS score in an international competition was at Autumn Classic International 2019, 89.70 points, another program full of mistakes. More mistakes than in Beijing.
This means taking part in a competition. If you make a mistake, you pay for it. Problems start when someone makes mistakes but doesn’t pay the price, something that fans of other skaters refuse to acknowledge. No, for them there are only Hanyu’s falls.
The previous post was about Chen’s posture. None of Chen’s movements are effortless. These are just a few examples, others could be done. And, speaking of BV and GOE, a more complete check will come when I manage to do it.
Chen isn’t just clumsy and stiff. Beyond the jumps, he just does simple things, as I mentioned in several posts:
Did Chen receive any component scores that match what he did? No. Chen is the one who received the highest marks, even if among the strong skaters he is the one who did the least and the one who did it worst. The images tell us that his movements are comparable to those of the skaters who finished the competition in the lower areas of the ranking. He skated badly, but he didn’t pay the price. And not only in everything that is not a technical element. I’m only watching the short program, and this is the landing of the 3T of the combination.
The 3T is underrotated and the landing is not effortless. Both the BV and the GOE should have been lower. As for the sit spin
Chen did not hold the correct position for two turns. If by any chance he reached it, and it doesn’t seem to me, he certainly didn’t keep it. This spin should have received no value, just like Hanyu’s salchow. Has Chen paid the price for his mistakes?
No, Chen received very high marks as a gift that he did not deserve. This means that the competition was not fair. Falls happen, they are not a problem. We may be sorry, but this is sport. But when the sport is not played in a fair context, when someone receives unwarranted gifts, the final result no longer matters. And Chen wasn’t the only one who received unwarranted gifts. As said, I haven’t looked at everything yet. These are just a few examples.
This is Kagiyama’s first spin in the short program.
This is definitely not the basic position. Unlike Chen’s, Kagiyama’s spin did not should have been canceled, because after the change of position Yuma reached the correct position. The right call, however, was level 3, not level 4, and I would also have given it a -1 (can be assigned up to -3) for Poor / awkward, unaesthetic position (s). And obviously, lacking bullets 2 and 3, good controlled, clear position (s) (inc. Height and air / landing position in flying spin) and effortless throughout, the final mark could not be higher than +2. But this spin also contains another mistake. When he changed foot, Kagiyama lost his balance.
Just to remove any doubt, this is a comparison with the same spin at the National Championship. Look at the arms, which in Beijing Kagiyama shakes to find balance, but also the position of the body and legs.
And, despite this, in Beijing Kagiyama received only a slightly lower score than that of the National Championship. For loss of balance the deduction goes from -1 to -3, and already we were at +2, so Kagiyama deserved at best a +1 (if the judge is really kind with him). He made a mistake, and received too high marks as a gift.
As for the step sequence, Kagiyama stumbled.
I remember that bullet three is effortless throughout with good energy, flow and execution, but a stumble automatically makes the step sequence not effortless. And then it must be assigned at least a -1 (but it can go up to -3) for stumble. Maximum possible mark: +2.
Did Kagiyama pay the price for his mistakes? No.
I haven’t watched Kagiyama’s free skate yet, but the fact that his mistakes (like Chen’s) haven’t been acknowledged by the judges and by the technical panel makes the competition a farce. As for Shoma Uno, he rotated very few jumps. For now I only watch two, in free skate. This is the 4S.
The technical panel assigned a q to the jump, giving Uno a gift, because the jump is underrotated. This means that Uno was gifted of 1.94 points of base value. Not only. The only bullet that can be assigned to this jump is 6, element matches the music. With a -3 (which could also be -4) for Landing on two feet, -2 for the rotation (it’s -2 fixed with a q, from -2 to -3 with a <) and -1 (but it could also be -2) for Touch down with one hand or free foot, the final mark can be only -5.
If anyone has any doubts about the touch down with the free foot, I’m referring to this moment.
And this is the 4F.
Uno fell, seven judges awarded to him a -5, two managed to award him a -4. I don’t see the call from underrotated, there are another 2.20 points of BV gifted to him. I’ll look at the other jumps done by Uno’s, I just need some time.
So yes. Hanyu fell. It happens. I’m sorry, but it happens. Hanyu paid for his mistakes, even more than he should have paid. Why were so many mistakes forgiven others? The final ranking of the men’s Beijing competition has very little to do with what the skaters did on the ice, even if the fans of the other skaters reject everything that happened besides those two falls. I would be ashamed of medals received in this way, but obviously everyone is free to decide what value to assign to his dignity.
On point as always, Martina. Much gratitude for the well-researched and technically knowledgeable write-up. Your posts deserve a much broader audience. There are few voices out there bringing attention to the unfair scoring that can knowledgeably support their arguments. I think your work is so important for the future of figure skating.
Thank you. I do my best. I am studying the rules and carefully looking at everything possible, hoping not to make mistakes. I would like to contribute to having better competitions, better judges, but in reality I am pessimistic about the future of figure skating. The past four years have told us that if a skater is liked by the judges, he gets high marks even when he doesn’t deserve them, and that working hard to perfect your technique does not ensure success. The new rules have taken away any value from anything that isn’t a jump, so skaters won’t have an incentive to improve.