Before July 18th I had started writing this post, then came the news that the next day Yuzuru Hanyu was going to give a press conference and I stopped. I no longer had the necessary concentration to write and, afterwards, I needed time to assimilate the news, and to read all the translation fragments I could find.

Hanyu left competitions, not skating. Knowing him, however much one might know a person only through his interviews or public appearances, and having seen his gala and show programs, I have no doubt that he will find ways to surprise me again. He did not leave the competitions because he is no longer able to compete at the highest levels, but because now the competitions have no meanings for him, with meaningless rules or rules that have meaning but are applied poorly. Hanyu is moving forward, figure skating has fallen behind. But the fact that Hanyu has decided to pull himself out of a system that is unable to recognize greatness when he is confronted with it does not mean that I will stop writing. This is why I have now picked up my incomplete post and completed it.

The careful vision of the Beijing programs raised a big doubt in me: is Shoma Uno able to rotate his jumps? Because in the last edition in the Olympic Games he rotated very few of them, and his free skate reminded me that in fact I have noticed on several occasions that some of his jumps were underrotated, even if the technical panel did not make the call. This is why I decided to look at the Stockholm 2021 programs. Not only that of Uno, it didn’t seem right to me to focus only on him. What would have happened if Uno had made some mistakes, and the other skaters as well? If I had watched only Uno’s programs, I would have been unfair to Uno. So I looked at the programs of the same skaters I watched in Beijing.

I haven’t done such detailed work. I ignored the PCS. In one case I explain why some marks are wrong, but in the tables in which I recalculate the scores I have not changed anything. I ignored the step sequences. According to the technical panel, the step sequence of Hanyu’s short program was the only one of level 3, all the others received a level 4. It’s right? I noticed some turn hopped, but again I didn’t change the score. I hardly looked at the spins. In the free skate I completely ignored them. In the short program I looked at only one detail: if there were the two turns in the basic position. In one case they weren’t there, and I called the spin as no value. In all other cases I kept the marks assigned by the judges. This means that, beyond a deleted spin, I changed the base value of the jumps when I considered the call on the rotation wrong, and only for the jumps I assigned what for me are the right marks in the GOE. I checked a lot less than I checked in Beijing. Let’s see what happened.

I remind you that you can find bullet and deduction in this post:

The Beijing programs: the scores. Introduction

See more

I used the same Beijing setting: on the left I wrote the elements executed according to the protocol with base value, GOE and score obtained by the skater for that element. After the green line I have indicated which bullets I have assigned, in the annotation area I have inserted the deductions (or even the indication of full rotated jump if I do not agree with the call of q or < made by the technical panel), so the base value possibly corrected by the different call on the rotation, the mark in the GOE, the relative score and the final score obtained by that element. For step sequence, spins, choreo sequence (only in the free skate) and PCS I limited myself to transcribing the official data, so I colored the boxes of the aspects that I did not evaluate in gray and I limited myself to transcribing BV, GOE and PCS . This doesn’t mean I always agree with those marks. As I wrote, some other step sequence would have deserved level 3, I haven’t really looked at the spins, and the PCS of Uno, Kagiyama and especially Chen are too high. For a true ranking, these data should also be corrected. I did screenshots only in cases where I context something.

I start with Hanyu. This is the SP.

I really wish the judges had to explain their marks, because two of them managed to assign a 0 to Hanyu’s quadruple salchow, one of them awarded a 1 to the triple axel, the other, plus a third judge, has awarded a +2, and no judge has awarded a +5 to the combination. The 4S has a bit of a hasty landing, but it’s something that makes him lose bullet 3, effortless, and the 5, very good body position, isn’t an imbalance that deserves a deduction, and the other bullets are there. Four bullet but not bullet 3? The final mark is +3. The other two jump elements are +5.

The free skate was much more problematic. Hanyu had an asthma attack. He did what he could, he fought with his usual determination, but when the body has problems, the program inevitably suffers. Hanyu made several mistakes, and the technical panel as well.

4Lo

The 4Lo is big, preceded by a step and on the music, but it is underrotated. Hanyu has lost the right sensations in the flight phase, he was unable to close his body properly, his rotation speed is reduced and the jump is missing some of the rotation. It is a problem that has plagued almost the entire program.

With bullet 1, 4 and 6, a -2 deduction for the underrotation and a -1 deduction for the touch down with the hand, the final GOE is 0.

4S

On the other hand, the rotation of the 4S is complete. I have the impression that the technical panel (not just this one) tends to call rotation problems when there is another type of problem. Something as “Is the skater struggling to control the landing? The rotation must be incomplete, that’s why he did a mistake.” Or “Does the skater stay on his feet without problems? Then the rotation must be complete“. But no. A skater can miss a landing due to problems that have nothing to do with rotation. And a skater whose jumps are always underrotated may have learned to control the landing of the underrotated well, and be able to mask his mistake.

This jump is bad, Hanyu did a step out and puts a hand on the ice. The step out is listed among those errors that block the starting GOE at +2, so even if the jump is big, preceded by a step and on the music I start from +2, I remove -3 for the step out, -1 for the touch down with the hand, and stop at -2.

3A

The 3A is big, preceded by a step and on the music. But it also has a bad landing. Usually I choose the smallest deduction. For a bad landing the deduction ranges from -1 to -3. This time the movement is evident (but I have seen worse), so I give him a -2, the final GOE is +1.

3Lo

Nothing to say about the 3Lo, which satisfies all six bullets. +5.

4T+3T

With the combinations the problems are back, after all it is with the jumps in which the skaters rotate more that the rotation speed is more important. If we look at the combinations at normal speed, the 4T+3T combination is beautiful. If we look at it in slow motion, the 4T is underrotated.

Note, however, the correct take off, with a very little prerotation, a correct technique that is disappearing. If the ISU doesn’t really start punishing prerotations, sooner or later we could end up with skaters doing two turns on the ice, two in the air, and receiving the base value of a quad. Hanyu managed to mask the mistake, not push himself well, so also the 3T is underrotated.

The take off is among second and third screenshot of the first line (almost no prerotation), the landing in the second screenshot of the second line.

There are bullets 1, 5 and 6. However, if there are multiple errors in an element (the rules as an example mentions both ! and <, here there are two <), the starting GOE cannot be highest than +2. Starting from +2, with two deductions, I stop at -2.

4T+1Eu+3S

Also the second 4T it is underrotated.

This time, however, after the 4T there is a euler, and Hanyu has a really beautiful. As a side note, many skaters perform eulers that seems a step out, I would assign them the deduction listed in the rules (Euler executed as step over -1 to -2). I know, I’m strict. A less severe behavior means helping those who have the worst technique at the expense of those who have the best technique, and I cannot accept this. With the euler, Hanyu manages to find his balance again, and the salchow, even with a slightly hasty exit, has no problems with rotation. There are bullets 1, 4 and 6, with the deduction the final mark is +1.

3A+REP

The triple axel, of which I do not take screenshots, ends with a step out. If I were less severe I could say that it is a hasty exit, this is one of those mistakes that the spectators inexperienced in figure skating hardly notices. With bullets 1, 4 and 6, but the starting GOE blocked at +2 because the step out is an error that sets the maximum possible starting GOE at +2, and -3 for the error, the final GOE is -1.

This is the protocol:

The base value I assign to Hanyu is almost eight points lower than the official one, but my GOEs are higher because I didn’t just look at his errors. Before the mistakes I also looked at the positives aspects, something that, I fear, some judges forget to do. In the end I award to Hanyu a lower score than the one awarded by the judges. This is by looking only at the more problematic aspects of Hanyu’s free skate. Maybe sooner or later I will also check the GOEs of the other elements, and I will also think about the PCS, because I have the feeling that by calculating everything, the score could change. Combining this score with the highest score he would have deserved in the short program, in the total score Hanyu would have deserved about five point less than what he was awarded.

Ok, let’s see how Shoma Uno skated.

4F

On the rotation of the 4F I do not pronounce myself, I have not been able to do screenshots that give me the certainty, in one direction or another. It would be nice if the ISU used other technologies, the one suggested by Hanyu in his thesis, or better cameras, or if they check the marks left by the blade on the ice. I am working a lot with screenshots. I realized that if I just watch the video I have so many doubts, but if I watch videos and screenshots the doubts diminish. There are cameras that allow us to take sequences of photos separated by a very short time interval. This could also be useful: the technical panel could compare the sequences of the take off and the landing. He would be much more precise in making his calls.

But if I have doubts on the landing, I don’t have any on the take off. It’s Uno’s usual horrible take off. Full blade and prerotation. The screenshot of the second row is identical to the one above, only it is done with the video at a reduced size and not full screen. The horizontal line indicating how much time has elapsed since the start of the video is at a slightly different height, and this allows us to better see Uno’s skate. Two errors, deduction -2. There are bullet 1 (I presume) and 6, but also long preparation, and in the presence of long preparation I never assign bullet 3, just as I do not assign 2 and 5 if there is a prerotation. Final GOE -1.

4T+2T

Again there is the long preparation, so I don’t assign bullet 3 and assign the deduction. The quadruple is prerotated, another deduction for poor take off, and Uno is lucky that I give him bullet 1, because during the prerotation the blade rubs on the ice, the skater loses speed, and the jump tends to be small. But I’m in doubt and I go in favor of the skater. And I go in favor of the skater also on the rotation of the double toe loop: it could be underrotated, but I’m not sure and so I give to Uno the full BV and no deduction. On the other hand, I’, sure that at the landing of the first jump there is no very good body position, as we can see from the last screenshot.

With only bullets 1 and 6, and two deductions, the GOE is 0.

3A

Uno has fallen, the GOE is -5. This is one of the cases that proves without a shadow of a doubt that judges are sometimes wrong to assign marks even when there is only one correct mark. The rules clearly states that in the SP a jump element not according to requirements the final GOE must be -5. There is no room for discussion, the final GOE must be -5. So why did two judges award a -4?

The protocol:

4S

I go to free skate. In this case we start better than usual, the preparation is fine, there are bullets 1 (I hope), 4 and 6. The problems, however, are on landing. The jump is underrotated and landed on two feet.

Landing on two feet is one of those mistakes that sets the maximum possible starting GOE at +2. With the two deductions, the final GOE is -3.

4F

The 4F of Uno is a hopeless case: huge pre-rotation and full blade, -2 for poor take off. In this case the jump is also underrotated, other -2, and … I could call the landing on two feet, the deduction goes from -3 to -4, but I’m generous and I just call a touch down with the free foot and to assign to Uno the smallest deduction, -1. With only bullet 6 the GOE is -4. Obviously the BV also goes down.

4T

I don’t even watch the take off, even though the amount of snow Uno is raising tells us that he is spinning on the ice. I remember that the technical panel cannot use the slow motion to say if the prerotation is excessive and the jump must be downgraded, but the rules do not say anything regarding the judges. Can they use slow motion to evaluate poor take off? It is not specified, but the edge of flip and lutz can be watched in slow motion. For me here there would be all the extremes for poor take off, but I go on.

The call of the technical panel is q. Maybe it’s correct, maybe not, I wasn’t able to do a clear screenshot. When in doubt I go in favor of the skater and call the jump full rotated. The BV does not change, the deduction in the GOE disappears. Not that the lack of that deduction makes a big difference. The landing is on two feet, deduction -3. There is a step out, another -3. And finally there is the touch down with one hand, -1. With only bullet 6, my total is -6. Obviously the -6 does not exist, the final GOE is -5. But I have a doubt.

With a step out we cannot start from a GOE higher than +2, something that I took into account when I evaluated the 4S of Hanyu’s FS. I don’t care what bullet there is. In my opinion there are no others, but let’s pretend that I was wrong and I did not notice one, and we start from +2. I’ve always given the littlest deduction, beware. From +2 there is the landing on two feet, with a -3 we go to -1. Then there is the step out, with another -3 we go to -4. There is the touch down with the hand, with a -1 we go down to -5. The technical panel called a q, which I didn’t do. This means that the judges were obliged to give a -2, the total is -7. Now my question is simple. How did a judge award -3? And how did two judges manage to award -4? If the rules apply at will, then we can cancel the competitions, because the winner is not the best, but the one who is most liked by the judges.

3A

There are bullet 1 and 6, but also the weak landing. The screenshot does not render well, if you watch the video you have no doubts. Deduction -1. The air position is also not great, but the problem is not so big that it deserves a deduction. Final GOE +1.

4T+2T

The 4T is underrotated. There is only bullet 6, the final GOE is -1.

3S+3T

That I call the q on a jump is quite rare. The chances of a jump being fully rotated, even if briefly, or underrotated, even if briefly, are much higher. In this case the 3T seems to me to have landed on the quarter. There are bullets 1 and 6, the landing is not beautiful, which is not surprising with Uno, but it is also not bad enough to give to him a deduction. The final GOE is 0.

3A+1Eu+3F

In this case I’m really generous with Uno. I have doubts about the rotation of the axel, but I think the jump is fully rotated. I also have doubts about the take off of the flip, but I leave that alone as well. And I don’t like the flip landing, but I don’t give deduction. With bullet 1, 3 and 6 I assign a higher score than the one assigned by the judges.

As he would have done in Beijing, Uno rotated only a few jumps in Stockholm too but, again, most of his mistakes were ignored by the technical panel and the judges. His mistakes affect both the BV and the GOE. This is the protocol:

Unlike Uno, Yuma Kagiyama rotates his jumps. He rotated them in Beijing, he rotated them in Stockholm. If he makes a mistake, it’s an occasional mistake, not a bad habit ignored by the judges. This is if we talk about rotation on landing. With the GOE, on the other hand, it is time to think a little.

4S+3T

No problem on the 4S, but the 3T is prerotated. All of Kagiyama’s toe loops are heavily prerotated, and on triples we can usually see even with the naked eye. How is it possible that if the skater misses a jump and loses a piece of rotation on landing, he skater is punished, if the skater deliberately cheats, rotates on the ice before take off, and rotates in the air for only two turns and a half (or three and a half, depending on whether it is a triple or a quadruple) is the skater not punished? This is the phase between the landing of 4A and the take off of 3T.

With bullet 1, 4, 5 and 6 and a -1 deduction for poor take off on the toe loop, the final GOE is +2.

4T

On the 4T I didn’t take screenshots, but there is the long preparation (9 seconds before the take off) and the usual poor take off, so I assign a -1 in both cases. I don’t like the flying position much either, Kagiyama doesn’t control the axis of rotation well, but it’s not something big enough to deserve a deduction. With bullets 1 and 6, the final GOE is 0.

3A

Bullets 1 and 6 were present. I was tempted to assign a -1 for bad landing (scratching), then I decided that that landing does not deserve bullets 2, 3 and 5, but not even a deduction. Final GOE: +2.

The protocol:

4S

The 4S with which Kagiyama opened his FS is big (I think, keep in mind that when in doubt I assign bullet 1), preceded by a step and on the music. But Kagiyama lands on the toe picks and is forced to make a slightly odd gesture to stay on his foot, with a scratching. I could give him a weak landing, but I opt for the generosity (a greater generosity than that of the judges).

4T+3T

In this case the bullets are only 1 and 6. There is long preparation, and also poor take off on 4T:

and also on the 3T (both lines are of the take off):

Final GOE: -1.

3F

I would have liked to see the edge of the flip from another angle, because it is impossible to evaluate it from this angle. I assign bullets 1, 4 and 6, and with a -1 for touch down with the free foot the final GOE is +2.

4T

Again there are bullets 1 and 6, again there are long preparation and poor take off. I was tempted to assign a -1 for poor air position, because Kagiyama doesn’t control the rotation axis well, but I let it go. The final GOE is 0.

3A+1Eu+3S

Bullets 1, 4 and 6 are present. However, at the landing of 3A Kagiyama is on the wrong edge, so I give him a -1.

I also have serious doubts about the rotation axis, but I leave it alone. The final GOE is +2.

3Lz+3Lo

This is another jump that I would have liked to see from another angle, because Kagiyama has a tendency to do a flutz, not a lutz. At the landing of the loop there is a step out, considering bullets 1 and 6 and a -3 deduction, the final GOE is -1.

3A

Bullet 1, 6, and a step out. Final GOE -1.

The protocol:

I end my checks with Nathan Chen.

4Lz

On the 4Lz Chen fell, the final GOE is -5 for the rules, for the judges and for me. But the technical panel did the wrong call, because the jump is missing more than 90°. The jump is underrotated.

The jump deserved a BV of 9.20 points, not 11.50.

There is also another problem. Falling is one of those mistakes that requires the application of a cap in the PCS. In truth it is the only mistake that we all agree on which is a serious mistake. This means that the maximum mark Chen could receive is 9.75 in SS, TR and CO, 9.50 in PE and IN. I have circled in red every time a judge has awarded him 9.75 in SS, TR and CO, and 9.50 in PE and IN. Considering that is the maximum mark Chen could receive, without falling a judge who assigned a mark that I circled in red, would have awarded to Chen a 10.00.

Oh, look. Judge 5 awarded Chen only 10.00. Are we joking? In orange I have circled the marks which, considering the obligatory deduction, correspond to 9.75, in yellow the marks which correspond to 9.50. But do we realize? Only 12 of the 45 marks awarded by the judges are lower than 9.50. A judge even managed to assign 10.25, which is the mark I circled in purple. The total is a (hypotethical) monstrous 48.13 points. For this program? I am not going to analyze the Stockholm programs with the same attention that I devoted to the Beijing programs, but between one element and another, before the step sequence, Chen did almost nothing. And I doubt that in a year his skating skills have deteriorated from near perfection testified by the marks in Stockholm to mediocrity in Beijing. Also in Beijing Chen received high marks, even higher than in Stockholm, but I have looked carefully at that program, and I’m sure that his score was too high. Even without careful checks, this makes me suspect that the marks received in 2021 are too high. Just to understand what I mean by speaking of Chen’s mediocrity, I have analyzed some details of his Olympic short program here:

PCS in Beijing: the new Olympic Champion and the others

See more

3A

There are bullets 4 (yes, sometimes even Chen deserves bullet 4) and 6, final GOE +2.

4F+3T

Chen was brave and good at recovering the combination he had lost with the fall on the first jump. But how did he get the combination back? There are bullets 5 and 6. Too bad there is also long preparation, and that the flip has a flat edge. Adding bullet and deductions, the final GOE is 0.

CSSp

I almost completely ignored the spins. The only check I have done is whether in the camel spins and sit spins of the short program the skaters have reached the correct basic position and have maintained it for at least two turns. The other three skaters had no problems. This is Chen. I did a screenshot from the start (on the second foot) to the end of the spin, approximately every last half turn.

So far Chen does not even approach the basic position by mistake, let’s see if he does better further on.

No value.

The protocol:

4Lz

With bullets 2, 5 and 6, and a -1 for long preparation, the final GO is +2.

4F+3T

This time the flip is correct, even if there is a long preparation. On the other hand, the 4T has poor take off and is underrotated. With only bullet 6, the final GOE is -3. The 3T:

3Lz

There are bullets 2, 3, 5 and 6, no deductions, final GOE +3.

4S

I am not sure if the rotation is complete, but I have not been able to take satisfactory screenshots, so I go in favor of the skater and judge the jump as fully rotated. There are all bullets from 2 to 6, final GOE +3.

4T+1Eu+3F

Chen’s 4T isn’t as bad as Kagiyama’s. While prerotation on the toe loop is a habit for Kagiyama, for Chen it is something that sometimes happens. This time it happened, which means I give him the deduction for poor take off. And given that more than 90 ° is missing from the landing, I also call to him an underrotated.

There is only bullet 6, the final GOE is -2.

4T+3T

I have a doubt, maybe the 3T is underrotated. I don’t understand, I go in favor of the skater and consider the jump correct. On the 4T I’m sure. The jump is underrotated, so I lower BV and GOE. With only bullet 6 the final GOE is -1.

3A

No mistakes, only bullet 6, GOE +1.

The protocol:

Looking only at the jumps, I put together the totals and compared the official scores with the ones I found. Uno remains in fourth position, Kagiyama drops to third, and despite a free skate far below Hanyu’s possibilities, the gap between Chen and Hanyu becomes much smaller.

Does this mean that Hanyu should have won silver and that Chen still deserved to win the title? No. I haven’t watched the step sequences, the choreo sequences, I hardly watched the spins, and most of all I didn’t watch the GOE. Let Me Entertain You is not Introduction and Rondo Capriccioso, but before seeing Hanyu’s latest short program we had no idea that such a complex program could be skated. Hanyu’s marks may be fine, others’ surely are too high, and with the correct PCS marks, Chen too would have fallen behind Hanyu. With the programs that the four skaters skated, and despite Hanyu’s mistakes, in Stockholm Hanyu should have won a gold, not a bronze.