Third short program in Beijing, and third short program that I watched very carefully. I mentioned the bullets and deductions related to each element, and the PCS table, in this post:
After the preliminary explanations, I wondered what marks Nathan Chen actually deserved for his program:
I did the same check for Yuma Kagiyama’s program
I watched Shoma Uno’s short program in the official Olympics version:
Let’s see how skated Uno.
4F
Shoma Uno was the first skater in history to complete a 4F. This does not mean that his 4F is beautiful. Let’s start with the run-up. Uno does a twizzle at 0:44, the preparation of the jump is at 1:00. If we really want to be generous, at 0:49 he lets himself slide for a moment, stretching his body, an attempt to embellish the run-up. Too little, and too far from the jump. I give him a -1 for long preparation, and given how long it takes he can already consider himself lucky that I don’t give him a -2. Obviously with this preparation there are no bullets 3 and 4.
The second problem is the poor take off. The jump of Uno (always, not only this time) is prerotated and the take off is from the blade and not from the toe pick. Two errors, for me the deduction is -2. If the ISU used the right technologies, the jump would have to be degraded, considering the technique it uses, Uno gets along with little. Obviously this technique makes bullets 1 and 2 disappear. As for the rotation… let’s say that the take off is in the second screenshot from the left (but it could also be in the third one), and in the bottom row in the second screenshot he has already landed, as we can see clearly from the change of inclination of the skate. This jump is underrotated, so I lower the base value and assign a deduction of -2 (but it’s missing so much that the temptation to assign a -3 is strong). With only bullet 6, the final GOE is -4.
I didn’t see him in the position of the last screenshot on the bottom right, okay? I haven’t seen that position and I don’t want to see it, I’m not interested in horror scenes.
4T+3T
With this combination I have many doubts and also some certainties. First doubt: the take off. The temptation to call the poor take off is strong. To understand the type of prerotation I make a comparison with Hanyu. The shot of Uno (in the replay) is much closer, but the angle from which the two quadruple toe loops are shot is very similar. In screenshot 2, of which I have reported the detail in the second row on the right, both have just placed the tip of their left foot on the ice. The right blade, for both, is almost horizontal. In screenshot 6 Uno is still on the ice, the left blade is almost horizontal. It’s only in 7 that he’s in the air, even though the tip of his skate is still touching the ice. He is facing forward. Hanyu is already in the air in screenshot 4. I couldn’t take as many screenshots as I did for Uno, the speeds of the two videos are different, but in the video you can see very well that Hanyu’s blade has already left the ice completely (so it’s in a later phase than that of Uno in screenshot 7), to the point that the blade is no longer pushing and is already regaining its natural almost horizontal position, instead of having its maximum inclination because it is in the terminal phase of the push. Hanyu leaves the ice around 90 °, Uno around 180 °. Kagiyama, to whom I gave a poor take off, is over 180°.
Second doubt: the rotation. It’s complete? I don’t understand it, I really wish I had technologies that can say for sure. When in doubt I go in favor of the athlete, who in any case when lands is very unbalanced forward. Landing is a bit ugly.
But let’s go on, to the certainties. The landing of the 4T is not beautiful, so Uno has some problems with the 3T. First he puts his hand down, in the first two screenshots, then he straightens himself with difficulty, so much so that he crawls his foot on the ice, in screenshots 3 to 6. They are two errors, so they are two points of deduction.
Only the measurements of the quadruple toe loop were given: length 2.42 meters (slightly above the average, which is 2.38 meters), height 44 centimeters (below the average, which is 48 centimeters), bullet 1 is not there. With such a jump element, to which I have only assigned bullet 6, the final GOE is -1.
FCSp
There are bullets 1, 3 and 6, GOE +3 (more or less the mark awarded by the judges, sometimes we agree in the way in which the elements must be evaluated).
3A
Here too I have a doubt about the rotation, but when in doubt I judge it to be correct. I want the technologies to evaluate rotations. Vincent Zhou has often been criticized for his lack of rotations, but I get the impression that Uno doesn’t perform the jumps so differently. He skate better, sure, but as for jumps… forget it. I give him the bullets 1, 2 and 6. I do not assign 3 for this landing in which he is unbalanced forward.
It’s not such a big problem that he deserves a deduction, but effortless disappears. There is no step and bullet 4, as for the position of the body, maybe next time it will be better. I have already shown you these screenshots, the take off with Uno (and Kagiyama too) retracting backwards.
Here instead we have the proof that only Hanyu knows the meaning of the expression very good body position:
Final GOE: +3.
CSSp
Impossible to evaluate with the bad shot we have, I keep the score assigned by the judges.
StSq
I suspect that the technical panel has not been very attentive to the turns. For a turn to count in the level of the step sequence, the blade must remain on the ice while the skater turn. If the blade goes up, the turn is hopped and must not be counted. And no, it is not enough that the tail of the skate remains in contact with the ice, it is the blade that has to do it. The technical panel missed the error on several occasions, even with skaters who did not finish the program in the upper areas of the standings.
I remind you that the referee was by Fabio Bianchetti, the one who, at the head of the technical committee of the ISU, removed the step before the jump in the short program because, in his own words, the judges were unable to recognize him (was he thinking of himself?), and according to which flip and lutz are performed with the same technique, and I wonder what indications he may have given to the judges in the pre-competition meeting.
As for the technical panel, I don’t remember anything special about two of them, but the technical controller was Feng Huang, suspended for a year for national bias after the PyeongChang Olympic Games.
This is Uno in the first combination of three difficult turns, at 2:30.
What do the rules say? For a level 4 there must be 11 difficult turns, with two combinations of 3 difficult turns. For a level 3 the difficult turns must be 9. There are other details that do not interest me at the moment. If the turn of a combination is hopped, the skater loses a level because that turn, which should have been counted, is not counted, and the total number drops to 10. Even though he may have made twenty more difficult turns in the step sequence, those turn does not count because the six of the two combinations must necessarily be part of the count. But what happens if a skater misses a turn in both combinations? The total number drops to 9, and 9 is enough for a level 3. But both combinations are wrong. Does this have any relevance? I do not know. I don’t know if the rules doesn’t specify it, or if it does and I haven’t found the rule. When in doubt, I notice that there is another turn hopped at 2:44, but anyway I assign level 3 to Uno, which I would have assigned even with only the first mistake.
With these premises, bullet 1, deep edges, clean steps and turns, is not there. I gave him bullets 2, 3 and 6. For me the 4 and 5 aren’t there because he doesn’t do anything in particular – he does a little more than Chen and moves better than him, but, for example, his Illusion turn is traveled and in his hops he leaves the ice by no more than five centimeters – but even if there were, nothing would change: without the bullet 1 the maximum mark is +3.
CCoSp
Again impossible to evaluate with the bad shot we have, I keep the score assigned by the judges.
PCS
As I have already explained in the introductory post, the first of which I inserted the link, the bad landing of the combination in my opinion is not enough to apply the roof at his components, so I do not apply it.
I took numerous screenshots of Uno’s program, trying to figure out how he skated, in this post:
I also compared some of his movements with those of other skaters in these posts:
Uno does only few difficult steps, and does them far from everything else, here we return to the table I have already used several times, a table based on Roseline Winter’s and Elisa’s analysis:
I repeat the explanation I already made on how to read this data. If you don’t need it, please skip the part that I included as a quote.
There are five columns for each skater. In the left column I have indicated what the skater did. Difficult stands for difficult step, element, with the light blue box, for the elements, whether it is a jump or a spin it doesn’t matter. The next three columns indicate what skaters do before (top row) or after (bottom row) of each difficult step or technical element. PS, with the box in green, indicates Power Skating, that is nothingness: crossover, crossunder, swizzle, movements that only serve to gain speed. Tr indicates transitions, but simple transitions. The next column, with the yellow boxes and the letter D, indicates what the ISU codes as difficult turn (bracket, rocker, counter, twizzle, loop, most of the chochtaws). The last one, in red, with the letter E, stands for element, because some skaters sometimes before or after something difficult do an element. The table is made up of what the skaters did at the National Championship, not the Olympic Games, but the differences are minimal.
This means that among the best skaters only Chen skates a simpler program than Uno’s. And since the impression I got was that of a lot of time spent on two feet, I decided to do another type of check. For reasons of time, I limited myself to a few skaters, in alphabetical order they are Kevin Aymoz, Nathan Chen, Yuzuru Hanyu, Yuma Kagiyama and Shoma Uno. Let’s take Hanyu’s chart as an example to see the kind of work I’ve done. For the times I used this program.
The table is divided into three large sections, BJ-BM, BN-BP and BQ-BT. Let’s look at the BJ-BM section first.
In the BJ-BK columns I calculated the time Hanyu spends on two feet or doing some movement (crossover, crossunder, toe push…) with which he was clearly looking for speed. I did not distinguish the two-footed movements from the search for speed both to simplify my work and because a distinction is not really important. I was interested in those moments when the skater is not doing something relevant to the program, so the moments when he is not doing jumps, spins or turns of various kinds. In column BJ I have indicated when the two-footed movement or push begins, in column BK when that movement ends. I ignored all movements that are too short, those less than a second, because a movement that lasts a short time does not disturb the emotional effect created by the rest of the program. In column BL I have indicated how many seconds Hanyu spent seeking speed or skating on two feet. In row 20 of column BK we see that Hanyu’s short program, from the moment the first note plays to the moment plays the last, is long 2:58. Of this time, for 40 seconds Hanyu seeks speed or skates on two feet.
But skating on two feet, without other indications, doesn’t do any justice to Hanyu (or to the other skaters I’ve watched). There are two-footed movements that require excellent edges control, such as spread eagle or cantilever. There are movements that have value from the point of view of the construction of the program, such as the two pivots made by Hanyu (and if we compare Hanyu’s pivots with that of Carrillo, as I have already done, we see that the quality of the element can vary, and that certain elements enrich the program even if the skater has both feet on the ice).
In the BM column I have indicated those movements that have a value for the program, even if they were executed on two feet. On line 7 there is a strange indication. Whenever the skater – in this case we are looking at Hanyu’s table, but it also applies to the others – has done something other than seeking speed or skating on two feet, I have stopped counting the time. I have not broken the timing in the case of a single mohawk did between two crossovers, although my calculations never start and never end with a mohawk, that for the purpose of this table is inserted among transitions, but with something that is more clearly functional to speed, like a crossover. Instead, I interrupted it in the case of simple glides on one foot, made to give breath to a run-up, to make it less perceived that it is a run-up. I interrupted it for a glide done by Chen, not for a glide done by Hanyu.
Hanyu’s movement is better than Chen’s. Hanyu has a better posture, he lifts his foot more, shifts the center of gravity a little. So why did I count Hanyu’s gesture within the runs but count Chen’s gesture about one foot skating? Because I’m a Hanyu fan. Do you remember the speeches I gave about bias? We all have our biases, but precisely because they are ours, we don’t see them. How do I know if my decisions are biased or objective? I read books that tell me about bias, and I think about it. I ask for the opinions of others, as I did, for example, with my small quizzes. I leave all the data visible, so that they are questionable, because if someone finds an error I can correct my post. And I’m strict with Hanyu. For real. When in doubt, my rule is to opt for sternness with Hanyu, but also to go in favor of the skater with all the other skaters. I may keep making mistakes, but I do my best to reduce mistakes. And so, for me Hanyu is looking for speed right now, Chen is interpreting the program.
In the BN-BO columns I reported the data of the BJ-BK columns, but I did some cleaning. I took out the spread eagles and all those moves that make sense for the PCS. If one of these movements is done before, or after, a run-up, I have removed only the seconds dedicated to that movement, leaving those of the run-up. The time spent by Hanyu running, or skating on two feet, drops to 27 seconds, because 13 seconds are dedicated to movements that are however significant. Yet even so I felt there was something wrong.
First there is the beginning. Hanyu remains still for 7 seconds before moving, it didn’t seem right to count these seconds with the rest. I did it with everyone, Chen remains still for 13 seconds, even for him I removed the initial seconds from the calculation. If in BJ4 Hanyu’s program started at 00:38, in BQ4 he starts at 00:45, when he starts moving. The total program time drops from 2:58 (BK20) to 2:51 (BR20). In the BQ-BR columns I have reported the data of the BN-BO columns, leaving out the initial seconds in which Hanyu remains stationary, but also all those occasions in which he skates on two feet or is looking for speed for just one second. Skaters need speed to perform jumps and spins, but if their pursuit of speed is short, alternating with moments when they really skate, even a crossover is not particularly disturbing. So removing all the shorter moments, here in line 20 we see that in a program of 2:51 minutes (BR20) Hanyu spends 16 seconds running or skating on two feet (BS20) and 2:35 really skating (BT20).
I’ve done this type of work for all five skaters. First I publish the complete tables so that, if you feel like it, you can check if I have made any mistakes in the indication of the seconds and in the subsequent calculations. But if you don’t want to be bored by numbers, you can watch only the last table. In it I collected only the important data, those that for Hanyu are found in boxes BR20, BS20 and BT20. The skaters are in alphabetical order.
In the final table I have indicated, in order, in the Tot SP column the duration of the program (excluding the initial seconds in which the skater remains motionless), in the 2feet/push column the number of seconds in which the skater is busy looking for speed or skate on two feet without doing anything that is minimally demanding, in the SS column the number of seconds in which the skater is doing something that requires at least a minimum of skating skills or is doing an element. And this time the order of skaters goes from the best, the one who devotes to running and skating on two feet, less time, to the worst, the one who spends the most time running or skating on two feet.
Hanyu’s values are absolutely incredible. We have already seen them, but let’s look at them again. The time he spends doing nothing is very little, he spends practically all the time doing something demanding. What technical and athletic skills do he need to present such a program? Whoever says Hanyu’s program is simple just because quads are salchow and toe loops either doesn’t understand anything about figure skating, or is in bad faith. The best after Hanyu, Aymoz, spends on two feet or in pursuit of speed almost double the time spent by Hanyu. Almost double. Aymoz and Kagiyama’s values are quite similar. Chen and Uno’s programs are much simpler. They both spend more than double Hanyu’s time doing nothing. Hanyu devotes 9% of his program time to run, Aymoz 16%, Kagiyama 17%, Chen 22%, Uno 26%. I would say that Uno gets a lot of rest. How? Uno is always on two feet – in stable positions, all the skaters do spread eagles and ina bauer, and I have excluded them from the count for all – and he makes a few gestures with the hands, remaining in a perfectly stable position, just to say he does something. The serious thing is that the judges do not notice it, or they notice it and despite this they assign him high marks.
Now, how can Uno be awarded marks in components that are higher than Aymoz’s? Some of Aymoz’s movements I showed you talking about Kagiyama, this is the spread eagle.
Aymoz’s lasts longer and has a deeper edge and a better body position.
As far as I’m concerned, Uno is more or less at the level of Kagiyama, inferior to Aymoz and also to Vasiljevs, even if in the end I gave him slightly higher scores than those of Vasiljevs (to which I would assign 9.00 in IN). This because I don’t want to be influenced by my bias.
The last screenshot is dedicated to the protocol. The left side is the simple transcript of the protocol, which you can find here. Beyond the green band there are the bullets assigned by me, and that I have listed above, then some important notes, the correct BV, the mark in the GOE taking into account bullet and deduction, the score of the GOE, and the total value of the element. Adding all the values of the technical elements with those of the PCS, found in the section below, this is the result:
Commenting on Chen’s short program I wrote that the 89.60 that emerged from my calculations did not automatically mean 12th position because it was necessary to recalculate all the programs in order to draw up a precise ranking. I am absolutely sure, even without calculations, that Grassl and Kvitelashvili still deserved to stay behind Chen, because they too were significantly overestimated in components (and this without even going to see Kvitelashvili’s 4T, which for me is a salchow and that I would judge no value because it breaks the Zayak rule). For the others I have no idea, we should look at the programs element by element and movement by movement. However, even if with a small gap, Uno still deserved to finish behind Chen.
