Analysis

Written by Paige Summers in GoldenYuna

Web Edited by Ene

▶ You can download the original file updated by Paige Summers in May 23, 2014

II. WHY YUNA DIDN'T NEED 3LO/2A3T TO WIN

http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/showthread.php?49533-Evaluating-Step-Sequences

TES = Base Value + GoE

As the top post on this thread by ladyepheu says, while some skaters derive their technical points from the base value of their elements (hence they come up with a program with elements with relatively higher base value), Yuna is a perfectionist who focuses on overall quality of her elements (hence she aims for high GoE). They both carry risks of their own - it’s not that only skaters who have higher technical base value carry risk (of executing difficult elements), but skaters like Yuna carry the risk in that she needs higher GoE to rack up the points. But it’s about where the emphasis lies - BV or GoE.

If you actually look at it in a different perspective, skaters who plan a program with higher technical base value have logic that they don’t need high GoE (meaning execute the element in high quality) and even if they fail to execute the elements, they can still walk away with good amount of points even after the deduction of marks. - so it is worthwhile to try out harder elements even though they are not at a level to execute the difficult elements with high quality. So their emphasis is aiming for better/harder “tricks or stunts” to impress people and insure high marks - Like Mao’s 3A. Now, this is not a bad tactic - if the skater can bring themselves to the level that allows them to handle difficult elements, it will be even more effective. But in this case, skaters tend to put less weight on artistry and overall quality on each element because they have hard time just to keep up with executing the difficult elements they can’t master. It is very rare that we see full quality/choreographic transitions on the all elements and good interpretation of music. (music and elements make good harmony and are in sync)

Yuna’s emphasis is on striving for executing a perfect program and applying inarguably flawless technical quality to all of her elements when executing her elements. Her technical strong points don’t stand out like Mao’s iconic 3A attempts, but Yuna has her own signature skills overall - Her textbook jumping technique, unbeatable consistency & high success rate of landing clean textbook 3Lz/3F (she was known for her 3F-3T/3Lz-3T combinations - she is the only skater who has three 3Lz & two 3F all throughout short & long program), Ina Bauer/Spread eagle entry + 2A, and Yuna camel spin (variation from camel spin - leg bent 90 degrees and upper body facing upward - requiring great flexibility). What makes her stand out the most is that she goes beyond simply executing the elements and completes a masterpiece of storytelling by reflecting the very emotion and essence of music into her program. And this kind of artistry and connection with music were founded upon her mastery over strong basic skating skills and proper jumping techniques. In Yuna’s case, she has to give the skate of her life every time (meaning she has to make tremendous effort in executing the elements in perfect quality) to get super high marks - this is a risk no different than the risks that the skaters who aim for higher technical base value programs take with their programs.

Now, 2013 Les Miserables was a classic case of how Yuna’s overall quality was truly reflected in her marks. I want to do a comparison between Les Miserables vs Sotnikova’s FS in Sochi vs Adios Nonino. This was partly motivated by a blog site posted on Golden Yuna, comparing Les Miserables and Sotnikova’s Sochi FS;

- http://blog.daum.net/jwvoice/12105063 (This site was posted by someone earlier in Golden Yuna and has nice gifs to help you see the huge diff in quality of elements btw Yuna and Adelina ? and this website motivated me to do GoE comparisons)

Protocols / Score sheet of the three programs

01. 3Lz-3T 3-3 Combinations

Les Miserables 12.0 = 10.1 BV + 1.9 GoE

Simply perfect textbook - clear outside edge, great height and distance & flow in and out of the jumps, and good in-air position/axis, her head stays in-line with her upper body, her upper body stays straight, not twisted

Sotnikova FS 11.1 = 10.1 + 1.0

Inside edge on 3Lz, pre/under-rotation & full-blade on 3T ― subject for deductions

- With edge call & 3T under-rotation

Should be 7.5 = 8.9 BV (6.0 3Lz+2.9 3T<) - 1.4 GoE (at least average of -2 GoE- translates into -1.4 with Scale of Value)

Adios Nonino 11.7 = 10.1 + 1.6

(not much difference in quality compared to Les. Deserved 1.8 at least.)

* Send in the Clowns; 11.6 = 10.1 + 1.5

The jump that was even better than Les Miserables in my opinion - really deserved +2.1 GoE (the max GoE you can get) Looks so effortless. Notice cross-foot-change back step going into 3Lz. No other skater does that movement before going into 3Lz.

* delayed jump ― right after jumping into air, a brief moment of stillness before rotating with much speed― speed & power going into the jump creates this delay ― subject for bonus

Sotnikova Short Program 3T-3T 3-3 Combination

9.80 = 8.20 + 1.60

Seriously, right after the three turn it’s hard to tell if she’s going into toe loop jump ― 00:12:82s she lands two foot after three turn when she’s supposed to flow from three turn to 3T. She doesn’t have the speed going into the jump so she uses power to get up high but her in-air axis is unstable. Did this jump combination really deserve 1.60 GoE?

02. 3F

Les Miserables 7.2 = 5.3 + 1.9

Perfect/flawless jump with solid, almost non-slanted (close to 90 degrees vertical) inside edge ― and with massive three-turn before take-off.

Sotnikova FS 6.8 = 5.3 + 1.5

Notice unstable and shaky edge right before take-off - it moves sideways just like her flutz, pre-rotate.

Adios Nonino 6.5 = 5.3 + 1.2

Again, not much difference in quality from Les. Should have been at least 1.7 GoE ― and look at her choreographic transitions afterwards.

* Send in the Clowns; 6.4 = 5.3 + 1.1

The jump that was same, if not better, than Les Miserables 3F - really deserved at least +1.8 GoE.

Ⅲ. 3Lo 2A3T counter argument and overall Technical Analysis & GoE Comparison & PCS

Written by Paige Summers in GoldenYuna

Web Edited by Ene

▶ You can download the original file updated by Paige Summers in May 23, 2014

II. WHY YUNA DIDN'T NEED 3LO/2A3T TO WIN

03. 3S

Les Miserables 5.6 = 4.20 + 1.40

Out of all of Yuna’s jumps, the most artistic & musical jumping element

Adios Nonino 5.52 = 4.62 (2nd half bonus) + 0.90

Sotnikova FS 5.82 = 4.62 (2nd half bonus) + 1.20

Is it an axel jump? Can’t really tell the difference…

04. 3S-2T vs 2A-3T

Les Miserables 7.35 = 6.05 (2nd half time bonus) + 1.30

Adios Nonino 6.60 = 5.50 + 1.00

Same quality, 3S-2T in Adios Nonino had choreographic transition element right before the jump. But GoE 1.30 → 1.00

Sotnikova FS 9.94 = 8.14 (2nd half bonus) + 1.80

For god’s sake… she nearly stumbles in between her jumps? looks like she carries heavy weight leaning forward & lacks flow. Doesn’t look effortless at all. And she pre-rotates on 3T? Oh and is her 3T an axel? She kicks of with full blade... This got GoE of 1.8??

Yuna Kim Vancouver FS 9.50 = 7.50 + 2.00

Yuna nailed this jump with spread eagle (difficult) entry, crazy height and distance, great stability and control on landing, beautiful flow/transition after the jump.

05. 2A-2T-2Lo vs 3F-2T-2Lo

Les Miserables 7.83 = 7.04 (2nd half bonus) + 0.79

Spread Eagle entry + massive ice coverage/distance travelled going into the jump, perfect flow in and out of the jumps ? but only 0.79?? Even at 2013 Worlds, Yuna didn’t get max GoE she could get…

Adios Nonino 7.83=7.04 (2nd half bonus) + 0.79

Same quality on the jumps (same as Les Misrables), Ina Bauer entry

Sotnikova FS 3F-2T-2Lo 8.34 = 9.24 (2nd half bonus) - 0.90

Again, Sotnikova’s persistent flaw in her toe jumps (the jumps that use toe pick to take off - 3Lz, 3F, 3T) is that she takes-off on full blade when it’s not a blade jump like 3A, 3Lo,3S (even if not as severe as full blade, she doesn’t take off on clear toe pick) and she tends to pre-rotate. And her 3F here is not an exception. And two foot landing 00:03:30(gif clip above), stepped out 00:00:46 - all these flaws and only -0.90?

06. 3Lz vs 3Lo

Les Miserables 3Lz 8.40 = 6.60 (2nd half bonus) + 1.80

Perfect textbook. Very visible clear outside edge 00:00:49, Speed, Great control of in-air position (axis, straight upper body, not twisted, head not turned sideways), fully rotated, beautiful light-as-a-feather landing, effortless throughout… And look at the transition right after the jump. One of Yuna’s best single 3Lz - and in second half too. Yuna derives big points from single 3Lz with 2nd half bonus

Adios Nonino 3Lz 7.60 = 6.60(2nd half bonus) + 1.00

Shaky landing, hard to expect highest GoEs but she had everything else in tact - great speed, great control in air, entry with outside edge (the second clip 00:03:19~23). But GoE of +1 seems quite generous considering how strict they were with GoEs on other elements that were done flawlessly - like Yuna’s 3-3, 3F. It’s funny a judge gave +3 GoE on this jump as if to mock her jump. It shows they didn’t really mark according to what they saw - they simply gave out GoEs they wanted.

Personally, even her shaky landing seemed a part of her routine - it’s amazing how she managed not to fall because it would have taken her a godly sense of balance.)

Sotnikova Sochi FS 6.70 = 5.10 + 1.60

Yuna 2007 ISU Grand Prix Cup of China

5.80 = 5.00 (base value of 3Lo before post 2010 rule change) + 0.80

Remind you, this was Yuna when she was 17. How is it that Adelina, who claims she was ready to claim gold, meaning her skills are ripe and established at high level, lands 3Lo with less quality than a 17-year-old and walks away with 1.60 GoE? (There are also clips of Yuna’s 3Lo in practice in earlier slide)

07. 2A

Les Miserables 4.77 = 3.63 + 1.14

Ina Bauer Entry, massive height & distance

Sotnikova Sochi FS 4.70 = 3.63 + 1.07

Right after 3S, no transition into the jump whatsoever…

Adios Nonino 4.42 = 3.63 + 0.79

Right after her choreographic sequence - Look at the speed & flow (after choreo) going into the jump

Send in the Clowns 4.70 = 3.63 + 1.07

Look at the deep edges in both directions during her Spread Eagle entry. This deserved at least 1.2 GoE

Sotnikova Short 4.63 = 3.63 + 1.00

Difficult entry, but she just doesn’t look confortable doing the entry element - her edges are unstable. I would say, however, that this was a good quality jump. Don’t know how she got +1.07 in FS 2A

Ⅳ. 3Lo 2A3T counter argument and overall Technical Analysis & GoE Comparison & PCS

Written by Paige Summers in GoldenYuna

Web Edited by Ene

▶ You can download the original file updated by Paige Summers in May 23, 2014

http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/showthread.php?49801-Analyzing-Sotnikova-and-Kim-s-footwork-in-the-FS/page45

II. WHY YUNA DIDN'T NEED 3LO/2A3T TO WIN

08. Step Sequence; Les Miserables & Sotnikova Short

Les Miserables StSq4 5.30 = 3.90 + 1.40

Sotnikova Short StSq4 5.40 = 3.90 + 1.50

Notice how Sotnikova extends her free leg ― leg with foot not on ice (called “swinging” ― specialty of ice dancing teams) A LOT but that is to hide her lack of edge control ― when non experts see her steps, they will think she did better because of her seemingly flamboyant free leg movement. ― looks like she did more, but it’s the deep edge use that counts towards step sequence level. It’s about how to do turns and steps with both side of edges and how to include body movement that will affect balance during the steps. GoE of 1.5 is bogus. +1.70 in FS Steps also was a massive bogus for the same reason.

Yuna is known for her deep & clean edge use during her step sequence . but she got level 3 on both short & long program step sequence.

Technical Specialist -in-training Tim Gerber’s analysis on Step Sequences

08. Step Sequence; Send In The Clowns StSq3 level 3

1. Chasse, clockwise

2. Rocker, clockwise

3. Chasse, clockwise

4. Choctaw, counterclockwise

5. Chasse x2, counterclockwise

6. Mohawk, counterclockclockwise

7. Crossroll (executed with a spiral), counterclockwise

8. Curve with change of edge, clockwise - ATTEMPT, the edge is shaky and doesn't get onto the new edge long enough, rolling her back onto the starting edge (may count if not too strict)

9. Rocker, counterclockwise

10. Counter, clockwise

11. Rocker, clockwise

12. Free foot comes down onto the ice on flat of blade, changes over to inside edge

13. Chasse, clockwise

14. Three turn, clockwise

15. Twizzle x2, clockwise (however, the second one isn't actually complete)

16. Mohawk, clockwise

17. Toe step x2, clockwise

18. Mohawk, counterclockwise

19. Two-foot mini curve, counterclockwise

20. Choctaw-like step (was on two feet), clockwise (This can be argued for a Choctaw)

21. Cross step, clockwise

22. Counter, counterclockwise

23. Twizzle x2, counterclockwise

24. Three turn, counterclockwise

25. Rocker, counterclockwise

26. Two-foot curve on ice (into full stop), counterclockwise

27. Push onto RFO 28. Three turn, clockwise

29. Loop, clockwise

30. Two-foot push onto LFO, almost with a mini hop

31. Rocker, counterclockwise

32. Curve with change oaf edge, counterclockwise

33. Loop, counterclockwise

34. Chasse, counterclockwise

35. Cross step, counterclockwise

36. Toe hop, clockwise

37. Push with toepick onto new skating foot

38. Toe step, clockwise

39. Chasse x2, clockwise

40. Rocker, clockwise

41. Bracket, clockwise

42. Counter, clockwise

She has 5 types of turns in both directions - Counter, Rocker, Twizzle, Three, Loop (Bracket would be here as well but her one shaky edge caused the turn to change to a Rocker)

She has 2 types of steps in both directions - Chasse, Mohawk

The one shaky edge cost her the level, by negating a step that she needed. I wonder if she was supposed to have another choctaw in there as well, though. It almost looked like she did one in a different direction during the second part of the sequence, but she was on two feet too long for it to count. That would have saved the level.

The “mistakes” or flaws #8 & #20 that Gerber mentions are counter-argued by “yyskate”on the same thread that Gerber posted his analysis on (Golden Skate);

“Yes, Yuna made a mistake there, if you watch her korean national SP step sequence, that part is suppose to be a curve with change edge + bracket. because of that mistake she lost the bracket and curve with change edge, both of which could be counted towards to levels. Although I still think the curve with change edge should still be counted if been lenient. I also think #20 should be counted as a choctaw step. I watched that step of her sochi performance and korean national one super slow-mo, they looked exactly the same to me, and the change of foot is pretty clear to me, and I dont see too foot during the change of foot. So I think the Sp step sequence is still level 4 even with that mistake and definitely will be a level 4 if lenient.I also tried to analyze Adelina's step sequence, but I give up, for the exact reasons you mentioned above, I dont know what level Adelina's step sequence will get, if we scrutinize hers using the same strict standard as we analyzing Yuna's here.”

Send In The Clowns StSq3 4.44 = 3.30 (Base Value lv.3) + 1.14

If this was properly graded as lv. 4, 5.50 = 3.90 (Base Value Lv.4) + 1.60

GoE 1.60 = (1.4*5+2.1*2)/7

Yuna got three +3 GoE and six +2 GoEs - trimming out highest & lowest, 5 +2s and 2 +3s left. Scale of value translates +2 into 1.4 and +3 into 2.1 (lv.4)

08. Step Sequence; Adios Nonino StSq3 level 3

http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/showthread.php?49801-Analyzing-Sotnikova-s-FS-step-sequence&p=885819&viewfull=1#post885819

1.) Toe step, counterclockwise

2.) Back edge pull with free foot toepick push, clockwise

3.) Mohawk, clockwise

4.) Waltz hop, clockwise

5.) Cross step, clockwise

6.) Change of edge from inside to outside with free foot in quick ina position, counterclockwise

7.) Change edge from outside to inside with free foot placed on ice

8.) Rocker, clockwise

9.) Bracket, clockwise

10.) Counter, clockwise

11.) Cross Roll, counterclockwise

12.) Rocker, counterclockwise

13.) Change edge from outside to inside

14.) Loop, counterclockwise

15.) Full turn on ice while changing feet, counterclockwise

16.) Toe steps, clockwise

17.) Rocker, clockwise

18.) Cross step, counterclockwise

19.) Choctaw executed with a hop, clockwise

20.) Twizzle, clockwise

21.) Chasse, clockwise

22.) Choctaw, clockwise + Choctaw, counterclockwise

23.) Top hop, counterclockwise

24.) Twizzle, counterclockwise (x2)

25.) Rocker, counterclockwise

26.) Edge change from inside to outside

27.) Three turn, counterclockwise

28.) Brief back inside two foot glide with back free foot mini-kick

29.) Choctaw, clockwise

30.) Three turn, clockwise

31.) Loop, clockwise

32.) Toe hop, clockwise

33.) Chasse, counterclockwise

34.) Curve with change of edge, clockwise

35.) Bracket, counterclockwise

36.) Cross step, clockwise

37.) Cross step, counterclockwise

38.) Half turn and edge change from inside to outside with free foot push, clockwise

39.) Toe step, clockwise

40.) Counter, counterclockwise

41.) Twizzle, counterclockwise (x2)

42.) Three turn, counterclockwise

43.) Rocker, counterclockwise

44.) Half turn and edge change from inside to outside with free foot placed on ice, counterclockwise 45.) Change of foot with free foot push, counterclockwise

46.) Illusion turn, counterclockwise

47.) Chasse, counterclockwise

48.) Toe step, clockwise

49.) Cross step, counterclockwise

50.) Chasse, counterclockwise

51.) Toe step, counterclockwise

She has 6 types of turns in both directions - Rocker, Bracket, Twizzle, Loop, Counter, Three

She had 4 types of steps in both directions - Toe hop, Toe step, Chasse, Choctaw

She has full body rotation covering at least 1/3 of the pattern in total for each rotational direction.

She most definitely has upper body movements for at least 1/3 of the pattern.

She has 3 different combinations of three difficult turns executed with a clear rhythm.

This footwork sequence is clearly Level 4.

Adios Nonino StSq3 4.44 = 3.30 (lv.3 BV) + 1.14

If this was properly awarded lv.4, 5.50 = 3.90 (lv.4 BV) + 1.60

GoE 1.60 = (1.4*5+2.1*2)/7

Yuna got three +3 GoE and six +2 GoEs - trimming out highest &lowest, 5 +2s and 2 +3s left. Scale of value translates +2 into 1.4 and +3 into 2.1 (lv.4)

08. Step Sequence Sotnikova FS StSq4 level 4

http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/showthread.php?49801-Analyzing-Sotnikova-and-Kim-s-footwork-in-the-FS

1.) Three Turn, counterclockwise (x2)

2.) Curve with change of edge, clockwise

3.) Twizzle, clockwise

4). Toe Hop, counterlockwise

5.) Rocker, counterclockwise

6.) Change edge from inside to outside

7.) Three Turn, clockwise

8.) Twizzle, counterclockwise (barely makes it around and free foot comes down quickly)

9.) Curve with change of edge, clockwise

10.) Loop, clockwise

11.) Three Turn, clockwise

12.) Choctaw, counterclockwise

13.) Illusion turn, counterclockwise

14.) Toe Steps, clockwise

15.) Rocker, clockwise

16.) Counter, clockwise

17.) Bracket, counterclockwise (FAILED attempt, edge is flat before the turn and unsteady on exit, with free foot coming down)

18.) Mohawk, counterclockwise

19.) Loop, counterclockwise

20.) Toe Hop, clockwise

21.) Chasse, clockwise

22.) Rocker, clockwise

23.) Rocker, counterclockwise (barely, edge is shallow and immediately changes over) 24.) Rocker, counterclockwise

25.) Chasse, clockwise (x3)

26.) Edge change from inside to outside

27.) Edge change from outside to inside with free foot placed on ice

28.) Rocker, clockwise (barely, edge is shallow and immediately changes over)

29.) Three Turn, clockwise

5 types of turns need to be executed in both directions. By my count Sotnikova only executed 4 types of turns in both directions - Three Turn, Rocker, Loop, and Twizzle (and this one is very questionable on the counterclockwise attempt).

3 types of steps need to be executed in both directions and I only see 1 type of step executed in both directions - Toe Hop.

She not only failed to achieve the #1 criteria for Level 4, but she also failed to achieve the #4 criteria. Other people who are able to, analyze this step sequence with me and let's uncover the truth.

Sotnikova FS StSq4 (should be lv.3) 5.60 = 3.90 (lv.4 BV) + 1.70

If this was properly awarded lv.3, 4.51 = 3.30 (lv.3 BV) + 1.21

GoE 1.21 = (1.0*4+1.5*3)/7

Sotnikova got four +3 GoE and four +2 GoEs and 1 +1 GoE - trimming out highest &lowest, 4 +2s and 3 +3s left. Scale of value translates +2 into 1.0 and +3 into 1.5 (level 3)

09. ChSq1

Les Miserables 3.60 = 2.00 + 1.60

Massive quality lunge, interprets music on a godly level

Adios Nonino 3.50 = 2.00 + 1.50

Nearly at the end of her program, she attacks her Choreo seq. with so much energy & speed with various moves executed with deep edge use and great sense of balance, in perfect sync with music

Sotnikova FS 3.50 = 2.00 + 1.50

Really? Spiral element and saying hi with your hand gets you high Chreo sq GoE??????? Without much elements packed into Choreo sq.?

10. Spins

This is a comparison between Layback spins of Kim and Sotnikova. You can see that Yuna has less range of travelling away from axis. It shows better centered control. But Yuna got less than 1 GoE.

Ⅴ. 3Lo 2A3T counter argument and overall Technical Analysis & GoE Comparison & PCS

Written by Paige Summers in GoldenYuna

Web Edited by Ene

▶ You can download the original file updated by Paige Summers in May 23, 2014

http://iceskatingresources.org/ProgramComponents.html

III. PCS (PROGRAM COMPONENT SCORE)

PCS cover five areas

Skating Skills

Transitions/Linking Footwork/Movement

Performance / Execution

Choreography/Composition

Interpretation

01. Skating Skills

Definition: Overall skating quality: edge control and flow over the ice surface demonstrated by a command of the skating vocabulary (edges, steps, turns, etc.), the clarity of technique and use of effortless power to accelerate and vary speed.

Criteria: YUNA KIM

Balance, rhythmic knee action and precision of foot placement √

Flow and effortless glide √

Cleanness and sureness of deep edges, steps, turns √

Power/energy and acceleration √ (Her effortlessness/poise degrades her power in the eye of the beholder, but she overflows with energy - her program’s filled with transitions/elements(restless) and she keeps great speed till the end

Mastery of multi-directional skating √ (Yuna fulfilled lv.4 step requirements 5 turns and 3 steps in both directions)

Mastery of one-foot skating √

Equal mastery of technique by both partners shown in unison (pairs and ice dancing)

Balance in skating ability of individual skaters (synchronized)

* Jumping Technique

- Yuna’s jumps are textbook in terms of proper entry & posture & edge, speed & height, in-air position/axis, and stable landing. With Yuna, t’s very easy to tell the differences between different jumps.

Yuna’s skating skills worthy of 9.2~9.6 points

Criteria: SOTNIKOVA

Balance, rhythmic knee action and precision of foot placement

Flow and effortless glide (she stumbles in her footwork segment… lack of flow)

Cleanness and sureness of deep edges, steps, turns

Power/energy and acceleration √ (she does carry herself with energy)

Mastery of multi-directional skating (didn’t even fulfill 5 turns/3teps in both directions)

Mastery of one-foot skating √ (Lots of free leg swinging ? so she does A LOT of one foot element)

Equal mastery of technique by both partners shown in unison (pairs and ice dancing)

Balance in skating ability of individual skaters (synchronized)

* Jumping Technique

- Sotnikova’s toe jumps (Lz, F, T) are mostly pre-rotated and take-off with full blade (naturally looks like an Axel jump). And her blade jumps that take off with full blade (A, S, Lo) are unrecognizably similar that you can’t tell the difference. (you can barely tell from the entry ie) three turn before 3S, cross x shape for 3Lo)

Sotnikova’s skating skills worthy of 7~8 points

02. Transitions/Linking Footwork/Movement

Definition: The varied and/or intricate footwork, positions, movements and holds that link all elements. In singles, pairs and synchronized skating, this also includes the entrances and exits of technical elements.

Criteria:

Variety

Difficulty

Intricacy

I’m not going to post all the transitions here, Adelina seems to have good amount of movements/transitions going in and out of the elements. Even more so than Yuna. (check out gifs of all the jumps and other elements) But if you look, only Yuna matched all the transitions with the music - the movements best complemented the tone of music ? make it a true part of her routine. And You’ll see that Yuna has better quality & flow of the transitions. Sotnikova does lots of three turns/movements in and out of elements but they are not with much quality and they are mismatched with music and they don’t help with the overall flow - it’s too much & overflowing & messy - don’t serve any purpose. But she got GoEs for supposedly difficult entry into the jumps when her jump themselves have cheating/bad technique.

03. Performance / Execution

Definition: Performance is the involvement of the skater/couple/teams physically, emotionally and intellectually as they translate the intent of the music and choreography. Execution is the quality of movement and precision in delivery. This includes harmony of movement in pairs, ice dancing and synchronized skating.

Criteria: (I’ve removed pairs/synchronized criteria)

Physical, emotional and intellectual involvement √

Style and individuality/personality √

Clarity of movement √

Variety and contrast √

Projection - Very unfortunate that Kim skated in front of Russian crowd, waiting for Yuna to make mistakes (Adelina surely got lots of crowd response out of patriotism)

Look at the variety of tempos, rhythms, expressions, and characters/personalities - emotional connection, poise, style of tango/mature feminine - all of these translated into her intricate footwork & clean/clean-cut upper body movement requiring balance, tango moves give it a distinct style? again in full style. SHE DESERVED 9.5~10

04. Choreography/Composition

Definition: An intentional, developed and/or original arrangement of all types of movements according to the principles of proportion, unity, space, pattern, structure and phrasing.

Criteria:

Purpose (idea, concept, vision); Yuna (Tango) Send In The Clowns (reminiscence of long lost love) Sotnikova??? Doesn’t have a clear concept… for both Carmen & Saint-Saens

Proportion (equal weight of parts) / Unity (purposeful threading)

Utilization of personal and public space

Pattern and ice coverage; Yuna tops Ice coverage ? she moves from one end of the rink to the other in a speed of light while executing her elements. Sotnikova lacks ice coverage.

Phrasing and form (movements and parts structured to match the phrasing of the music); Yuns’s every movement matches music ? Yuna incorporated tango moves into her routine, staying true to the music’s nature ? in perfect sync with tango melody (ie. Abrazo & Voleo in step sequence) Adelina had nothing that was dedicated to the essence of the music piece.

Originality of purpose, movement and design; Tango is often not a common choice for FS - the rhythm/tempo are dynamic ? meaning the music carries various tones - sadness, passion, etc. - hence, the music is very hard to interpret. Yuna included unique tango-on-ice moves that match the music perfectly.

Shared responsibility in achieving purpose (pairs, ice dancing and synchronized skating)

Yuna deserves 9.5~10 in this category

(from upper left; Abrazo, Voleo, Enrosque, Gancho)

So basically, Yuna evenly placed her elements and it would have taken her great energy to carry out all her elements till the end. Notice how she put her step sequence before half way point. It takes great energy out of you to cover ice and do steps/turns that require balance ? she does it for nearly a minute and then without a resting point she goes into 3Lz ? first jump past the half way point. Yuna didn’t play it safe at all ? this would have been very challenging.

On the other hand, Sotnikova stalls in the first half only completing three jumping elements (3-3, 3F, 3Lo) & spin ? Notice how it took her 30s to get to her 1st 3-3 jumps (she didn’t even cover ice for the 1st 15s) and after 3-3, it takes her another 30s to get to her 3F. Did she put any choreography in between there that interprets the music? Nope, not at all… just pointless transitions that still would count towards program component, but it is very cowardly to stall for so long because her lack of actual elements in 1st half was to save energy for the second half -she has difficult combinations planned for second half ? 2A3T, 3F2T2Lo. She planned to have these combinations in the second half for higher marks ? now, she wanted to save energy for those so she fills first half with lots and lots of transitions… Have Adelina do it in a similar order as Yuna ? do you think she can handle it? Also, she finishes all her jumping elements before 3 min into her program. No other skater has that composition of elements in their programs. Lastly, it was very cowardly of her to put Step sequence and ChSp1 back to back so people don’t notice that she lacks elements in her StSq. Her step sequence only lasted 25s vs Yuna’s 50s. And her Choreo sq wasn’t really Choreo sequence ? it was a 8s spiral ? nothing related to her music… How on earth can you call her program difficult? And how on earth did Adelina get over 70 PCS?

05. Interpretation

Definition: The personal and creative translation of the music to movement on ice.

Criteria:

- Effortless movement in time to the music; √

- Expression of the music's style, character, rhythm; √

- Use of finesse* to reflect the nuances of the music √

- Relationship between the partners reflecting the character of the music (pairs, ice dancing and synchronized skating)

- Appropriateness of music in ice dancing, short dance and free dance

* Finesse is the skater's/team's refined, artful manipulation of nuances. Nuances are the personal artistic ways of bringing variations to the intensity, tempo and dynamics of the music made by the composer and/or musicians.

Again, this shows how Yuna reflected changing/dynamic tones/nuances of the music and made it all part of her character. You see how she marks the change of tempo/tone with various expressions. This piece of Adios Nonino is unique and creative in that it was colorful despite the overall sorrowful tone ? Piazolla wrote it in memory of his late father. (Moments like 2. and 4. ? bring a different dynamics/tempo from the original music piece.) And with Yuna’s interpretation, it comes natural to do a story telling from her various expressions (through her facial expressions/poses) THIS PROGRAM DESERVED 9.8~10 for interpretation.

I’m not even going to bother going into performance, choreography, interpretation with Sotnikova’s performance because it is an insult to even compare it with Yuna’s performance. All I’m going to say is that Sotnikova had a very weak program that doesn’t fulfill all the required criteria for program components. And she got one of the highest PCS (nearly perfect) simply for putting on a seemingly clean performance without a visible/major flaw (falls).

NOW, TO WRAP UP WITH WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN...

Total TES&PCS of both short program & FS after taking all technical errors into account and with more reasonable GoE

Irrational GOE, Pre-decided PCS and Inappropriate Judges

Analysis reviewed by ISU-certified technical specialists

http://www.insideskating.net/2014/03/20/interviews/letter-to-isu-office-holders-people-deserve-to-know-if-a-mistake-was-made

(2014/03/20)

Letter to ISU office holders: “People deserve to know if a mistake was made”

According to Tim Gerber’s analysis ? reviewed by two other ISU-certified technical specialists ? the level calls for the step sequence of Adelina Sotnikova and Yuna Kim (in the free program) were both wrong (the Russian received a Level 4 and the South Korean, a Level 3, when, in fact, it should have been completely opposite); and wrong was also the judgement of Sotnikova’s Triple Lutz + Triple Toeloop combination: “Sotnikova clearly has a wrong edge flutz takeoff on her Lutz. She has had this technique problem her entire career. How can it be that the tech panel suddenly missed it? Her edge clearly changes over as she takes off for the jump. Furthermore, the Triple Toeloop in combination with the Lutz was obviously underrotated”.

The levels of the step sequence for both skaters, the flutz takeoff, the underrotated Toeloop… Tim Gerber summarizes: “This is a total of 4 wrong calls that the technical panel made, which were all in the benefit of Sotnikova. She also received insanely high and incorrect scores from the judging panel ? who on Earth could ever give Sotnikova’s step sequence +3 GOE when she has so many sloppy edges, lack of flow between movements, and very little rhythmic timing of her movements? All of these incorrect marks look like far more than honest mistakes or being generous to a young girl who skated well in front of a home audience. It looks like cheating. There is no explanation other than complete incompetence by the both the technical panel and the judges”.

http://mydearkorea.blogspot.com/2014/03/sochi-figure-skating-scandal-tim.html

번역 My Dear Korea

ISU 관계자들에게 보내는 (팀 거버의) 편지: “잘못이 있었다면 우리에겐 알아야 할 자격이 있다”

(플로렌티나 톤 (Florentina Tone) 기자) 2014년 소치올림픽에서 여자 피겨 싱글 경기가 끝난지 한 달이 지났다. 하지만 사람들은 여전히 러시아의 소트니코바가 지난 밴쿠버 올림픽 챔피언인 김연아를 누르고 금메달을 딴 소치 올림픽 결과에 대해 의문을 제기하고 있다. 여기서 (의문을 제기하고 있는) "사람들"이란 단지 (자기가 좋아하는 선수에 대한 주관적 견해로 비판을 받기도 하는) 보통의 피겨 팬들 뿐 아니라 현재 피겨종목에서 사용되는 신채점제(COP)를 잘 알고 있는 피겨 기술 전문가들까지도 포함해서 지칭하는 것이다. 이들 전문가 중 한 사람이 바로 팀 거버(Tim Gerber)인데, 그가 전직 피겨 선수라는 사실보다 더욱 중요한 것은 그가 예전에 ISU 테크니컬 스페셜리스트 세미나에 참여한 적이 있다는 것이다. 이 세미나는 피겨 경기의 테크니컬 스페셜리스트가 되고자 하는 사람들을 위한 전면적인 훈련을 제공한다. 이러한 자격(혹은 피겨 지식)을 갖춘 팀 거버는 최근 국제빙상연맹 (ISU)에 소속된 피겨 관계자 33명에게 편지를 보냈다. 이 편지의 수신자에는 소치 여자 싱글 경기에 테크니컬 컨트롤러로 참여한 알렉산더 라커닉도 있는데, 이 편지에서 그는 이번 동계올림픽의 바로 이 특정한 경기 (곧 여자 싱글)에서 테크니컬 패널이 어떤 일을 했는지를 묻고 있다.

팀 거버의 분석에 의하면 (참고로 이 분석은 ISU 공인 테크니컬 스페셜리스트에 의해 (이미) 검토되었다) 소트니코바와 김연아의 프리 경기 스텝시퀀스에 각각 주어진 레벨은 둘 다 잘못 되었다. 소트니코바는 레벨 4를 받았고 김연아는 레벨 3을 받았는데 사실 이 판정은 완전히 반대로 되었어야 했다. (김연아가 레벨 4, 소트니코바가 레벨 3을 받았어야 했다는 뜻) 또 잘못된 판정은 소트니코바의 트리플러츠-트리플 토룹 컴비네이션 점프에서도 있었다. "소트니코바가 러츠 점프를 뛸 때 롱엣지 플러츠 도약을 한다는 것은 분명한 사실이다. 이런 기술적 문제는 그녀가 피겨 선수로 뛰는 동안 내내 가지고 있던 문제였다. 그런데 어떻게 테크니컬 패널이 갑자기 그것을 못 볼 수 있는가? 그녀의 엣지는 도약하는 순간 명확하게 (아웃엣지에서 인엣지로) 바뀌었다. 게다가 트리플 러츠-트리플 토룹 콤비네이션 점프의 연결 트리플 토룹은 명백하게 회전수가 부족한 점프였다."

선수 두명에 주어진 스텝시퀀스 레벨, 플러츠 도약, 회전수가 부족한 토룹... 이에 대해 팀거버는 다음과 같이 요약했다. "이는 테크니컬 패널이 총 네 부분에 있어 잘못된 판정을 했다는 사실을 말한다. 물론 모두 소트니코바에게 이익이 되는 판정이었다. 그녀는 또한 저징패널 (가산점을 주는 심판단)으로부터 미쳤다고 밖에는 볼 수 없는 잘못된 고득점을 했다. 지구상 그 누가 엣지 사용이 엉망이고 동작과 동작을 연결하는 흐름도 없고 음악에 맞춰 타는 동작도 거의 볼 수 없는 소트니코바의 스텝시퀀스에 +3의 가산점을 줄 수 있단 말인가? 이러한 잘못된 점수들은 정직한 실수, 즉 고의가 아닌 실수라거나 자국 관중 앞에서 스케이트를 잘 탄 어린 소녀에게 후한 점수를 준 것 뿐이라고 보기엔 너무 과했다. 이것은 부정 행위(cheating)이다. (그게 아니라면) 테크니컬 패널과 심판들 모두가 완전히 무능했다고 볼 수 밖에는 없다."

팀 거버가 말했듯 "잘못이 있었다면 우리에겐 그걸 알 자격이 있다." 그래서 "이번 소치 올림픽의 각각의 테크니컬 패널들에게 주어진 임무가 무엇이었으며 그들이 어떤 판정을 했는지"를 묻기 위해 2014년 소치 올림픽 여자 싱글 경기의 테크니컬 콘트롤러였던 알렉산더 라커닉을 포함한 ISU 관계자 33명에게 편지를 보냈다. 하지만 지금 이 순간까지 그 편지의 수신자들 중 그 누구도 답변을 하지 않고 있다.

이미 끝난 지 한 달이 다 되어 가는 소치 여자 싱글 경기에 대한 관심이 (여전히) 크고 (팀 거버가) 편지에서 제기한 질문들이 정당하므로, 우리는 팀에게 그의 편지를 보다 많은 독자들과 공유할 수 있도록 허락을 구했다. 그가 ISU 피겨 관계자들에게 보낸 편지 전문은 다음과 같다.

“친애하는 나의 피겨 동료들께,

우리는 소치 올림픽에서 테크니컬 패널들이 얼마나 신통치 않게 판정을 했는지에 대해 이야기를 해 볼 필요가 있습니다. 먼저 여자 싱글 경기에서 1, 2등을 한 선수 두명이 받은 판정에 대해 얘기를 해 보죠.

첫번째로, 소트니코바와 김연아가 받은 스텝시퀀스 레벨입니다. 소트니코바는 레벨 4를, 김연아는 레벨 3을 받았습니다. 하지만 이에 대해 나도 분석해 보고 또 다른 전문가들도 분석해 봤지만 이 레벨 판정은 잘못되었습니다. 소트니코바는 (기껏해야) 레벨 3을 받았어야 했고 김연아는 레벨 4를 받았어야 했습니다. 이에 대한 전반적인 분석은 이곳에서 볼 수있습니다.

(소치 올림픽 경기에서) 스텝시퀀스를 할 때 소트니코바가 완벽하지 않는 엣지사용과 완벽하지 않은 스텝을 했다는 건 명백한 사실이며, 이제까지 그녀가 참가했던 다른 대회에서 항상 레벨 3 밖에는 받을 수 없었는데 그런 그녀의 스텝 레벨에 대해 어떻게 테크니컬 패널은 레벨 4를 줄 수 있었나요? 어떻게 더 잘 짜여진 구성요소로 레벨 4를 받는데 모든 기준을 만족 또는 초과했던 김연아의 스텝시퀀스가 레벨 3을 받을 수 있었는가 말입니다! 김연아의 스텝시퀀스는 아주 복잡하면서도 매우 정확한 엣지사용을 보여줬습니다.

테크니컬 패널은 스텝시퀀스를 판정할 때 각각 임무를 분담하며, 또한 시퀀스의 레벨을 책정하는데 필요한 각기 다른 기준들에 부합하여 선수가 경기를 했는지를 보기 위해 3명의 패널들이 각각의 책임을 분담합니다. 나는 이번 소치 올림픽에서 각 테크 패널들이 어떤 임무를 분담했고 각각 어떤 판정을 했는지 알고 싶습니다. 만약 잘못이 있었다면 우리에게는 그것을 알 자격이 있습니다. 적어도 미래의 테크니컬 패널들은 이번 올림픽에서 내려진 신통치 않은 판정을 통해 배울 수 있고 성장할 수 있으니까요.

이번 올림픽 테크니컬 패널에 대한 두번째 문제는 소트니코바의 트리플러츠-트리플 토룹 콤비네이션에 대한 판정입니다. 소트니코바가 러츠 점프에서 플러츠 도약을 했다는 건 명백한 사실입니다. 그녀는 이런 (잘못된 엣지 사용이라는) 기술 문제를 그녀의 선수 생활 내내 가지고 있었습니다. 그런데 어떻게 테크니컬 패널이 그걸 갑자기 못 볼 수가 있었지요? 그녀의 엣지는 점프 도약시 명백하게 바뀌었습니다. 게다가 이 트리플러츠-트리플토룹 콤비네이션에서 (연결점프인) 트리플 토룹은 명백하게 회전수가 부족했습니다. (선수가 90도 각도 이내에만 착지하면, 즉 1/4 바퀴정도 부족하게 착지만 해도 회전수 부족으로 감점을 받지 않지만) 소트니코바의 스케이트날은 이 기준에도 훨씬 못 미치는 지점에서 이미 빙판에 착지해 있었습니다. 그녀는 테크니컬 패널이 앉아 있는 쪽의 보드를 90도 등진 채 점프 도약을 했습니다. 이건 그녀가 점프를 확실히 인정 받고 점수를 다 받기 위해서는 그녀의 스케이트가 테크니컬 패널을 똑바로 마주 본 채 빙판에 착지해야 한다는 것을 의미합니다. 하지만 그녀의 스케이트 날은 그 기준점에서 명백하게 부족한 곳에 (그렇게 똑바로 마주 보지 못한 채로) 착지했습니다. 이런 회전수 부족은 소트니코바가 선수 생활 내내 가지고 있었던 또다른 기술적 문제 중 하나입니다. 소트니코바는 이제까지 트리플러츠-트리플 토룹 콤비네이션을 뛸 때 회전수를 다 채운 점수를 받은 적이 없었습니다. 이 소치 올림픽 이전까지도. 이전 점프가 의심할 수 없는 부정 (cheating) 점프였다면 어떻게 소치에서는 그런 점수를 받을 수 있었나요?

지금까지 언급한 네가지 부분이 모두 소트니코바에게 이익이 되었던 테크니컬 패널의 잘못된 판정들입니다. 하지만 그녀는 또한 저징패널 (가산점을 주는 심판단)으로부터 미쳤다고 밖에는 볼 수 없는 잘못된 고득점을 했습니다. 지구상 그 누가 엣지 사용이 엉망이고 동작과 동작을 연결하는 흐름도 없고 음악에 맟줘 타는 동작도 거의 볼 수 없는 소트니코바의 스텝시퀀스에 +3의 가산점을 줄 수 있단 말입니까? 이러한 잘못된 점수들은 정직한 실수, 즉 고의가 아닌 실수라거나 자국 관중 앞에서 스케이트를 잘 탄 어린 소녀에게 후한 점수를 준 것 뿐이라고 보기엔 너무 과했습니다. 이것은 부정 행위(cheating)입니다. (그게 아니라면) 테크니컬 패널과 심판들 모두가 완전히 무능했다고 볼 수 밖에는 없습니다.

피겨 종목이 성공적으로 지속되기 위해서는 이런 일들이 계속 벌어져서는 안 됩니다. 부정 행위에 대한 이야기를 잠시 미뤄 봅시다. 러시아인들로부터 뇌물을 먹었거나 경기 결과를 비틀도록 그들에게 위협을 받은 사람이 저지들이나 테크니컬 패널들 중에 아무도 없었다고 가정해 봅시다. 그렇다면, 모든 판정을 명확하게 하기 위해, 부패의 가능성을 줄이기 위해 무엇을 할 수 있을까요? 태크니컬 패널들을 더 잘 훈련시켜야 합니다. 저지들도 더 잘 훈련시켜야 합니다. 저지들은 익명으로 판정해서는 안 됩니다. 채점제를 아주 많이 수정해야할 필요가 있습니다. 스텝시퀀스는 이렇게 과도하게 복잡할 이유가 없습니다. (과도하게 복잡한 스텝시퀀스는) 프로그램의 진짜 안무를 제대로 볼 수 없게 만들고, 경기가 벌어지는 동안 관중들로 하여금 저지들의 판정을 이해하는 것을 불가능하게 만듭니다.

읽어주셔서 고맙습니다.”

팀 거버는 누구인가

인사이드 스케이팅(Inside Skating)은 팀 거버의 편지와 함께, 그가 ISU에 편지를 쓰게 된 정황을 이해하기 위해 그와의 짧은 인터뷰를 싣는다.

팀 거버씨, 당신의 편지를 보다 잘 이해할 수 있도록 당신과 당신의 피겨 경력에 대해 간략한 소개를 부탁한다.

나는 피겨선수로 수년간 훈련을 했으며 트리플 러츠까지 모든 점프를 뛸 수 있었다. 2010년에 (ISU의) 테크니컬 스페셜리스트 훈련을 위한 강좌를 수강할 기회가 있었다. 그곳에서 나는 ISU가 (참가자들에게) 제대로된 훈련을 제공하고 있지도 않을 뿐 더러, ISU 자체가 자신들이 만든 채점제를 충분히 이해 못하고 있다는 느낌을 받았다. 이와는 별개로 나는 또한 피겨역사와 기술, 그리고 안무를 광범위하게 공부하였다.

ISU가 (참가자들에게) 제대로된 훈련을 제공하고 있지 않다는 건 무슨 의미인가? 좀 더 구체적으로 말해 주겠는가?

세미나는 3일 과정이었는데 이 과정을 통해 참가자들은 경기에서 테크니컬 스페셜리스트를 볼 수 있는 자격을 갖게 되는 모든 훈련을 받게 된다. 내 기억이 정확하다면 이런 규모의 세미나가 미국에서 매년 두번 열린다. 경기요소를 구별하는 방법을 가르치기 위해 많은 예를 보여주지만 가장 눈에 띄는 점은 바로 점프의 회전수를 판정하기 위한 그 어떤 실제적인 과학적 근거를 가르쳐 주지 않는다는 것이다. 피겨의 점프는 과학이다. 우리는 공중에서 점프의 회전수를 식별할 수가 있다. 하지만 ISU의 과정은 점프의 회전수가 부족한지 아닌지를 판단하는데 있어 참가자들에게 점프의 실제 도약 지점과 실제 착지 지점을 비교하는 것을 가르치지 않은 채로 명확하지 않은 설명 만을 해 줄 뿐이었다.

마찬가지로. "난이도(difficult variations)"에 따른 스핀 레벨을 결정하는 규정 또한 이랬다 저랬다 한다. (심판들은) 어떤 스핀을 고난이도로 인정하기 위해서는 몸의 중심축에서 한결같이 흔들리지 않으며 수행되는 스핀 포지션을 봐야 한다고 배운다. 하지만 선수가 몸의 중심을 전체적으로 콘트롤 할 수 있는 능력이 돼야만 수행가능한 스핀임에도 불구하고 이런 고난이도 레벨을 받을 수 없는 스핀들이 많다. 예를 들면, 전체적으로 등에 완만한 아치를 그리면서 떠있는 한쪽 다리를 뒤로 들어 빙면과 평행을 이룬 상태로 도는 전형적인 레이백 포지션, 등을 꼿꼿이 편 상태로 떠있는 한쪽 다리를 앞으로 곧게 뻗고 도는 싯 스핀 포지션, 그리고 떠있는 발을 엉덩이 높이 뒤로 뻗어서 수평이 되게 하는 자세로 도는 전형적인 카멜 스핀..... 하지만 이 모든 포지션들은 이를 수행하기 위해서는 몸의 중심을 전체적으로 사용해야 한다는 (중심축에서 흔들리지 않아야 한다는) 필수 요건을 만족시킴에도 불구하고 그저 "기본" 포지션에 불과하며 (고난이도에 해당하는) 점수를 받을 수가 없다.

당신의 이런 지식을 가지고 피겨 테크니컬 패널로 일한 적이 있나?

ISU 주관 경기에서 테크니컬 패널로 참가한 적은 없고 지금 현재 다른 선수들을 가르치지도 않는다. 하지만 과거에 하위 레벨 선수들을 가르치고 안무를 짜준 경험이 있다. 2012년에 나는 피겨를 직업으로 계속할 수 없다는 결론에 도달했다. 이것으로 밥을 벌어 먹을 만큼 충분한 기회를 얻을 수가 없었기 때문이다. 피겨 선수를 하는 동안 나는 가족이나 후원자의 도움이 없이 모든 비용을 나 혼자 지불했다. 틴에이저가 된 이후 나는 피겨를 위해 이런 저런 부업을 하며 비용을 마련했다. 피겨계에서 이런 예는 찾아 볼 수 없고 따라서 나는 상위 레벨에서 경기해서 이름을 알릴 기회를 쉽게 얻을 수 없었다. 나는 현재 헐리우드의 디자인 회사에서 사업관리자로 일하고 있다.

당신의 편지는 누구를 향해 쓰여진 것인가? 수신자들에게서 피드백은 있었나?

국제빙상연맹(ISU) 안의 모든 관계자들에게 쓴 편지이다. 이번 올림픽 여자 싱글 경기에서 테크니컬 패널에 있었던 알렉산더 라커닉이 그들 중 하나이다. 라커닉은 여자 싱글과 페어 경기의 테크니컬 위원장이었다. 내 편지는 단체 이메일을 통해 총 33명의 ISU 관계자들에게 전해졌다. 하지만 아직까지 그 누구에게서도 답신을 듣지 못했다.

또한, 이번과 비슷한 문제로 나는 ISU에 자료를 보낸 적이 있다. 물론 ISU 관계자에게 이런 "문제를 야기하는" 편지를 보낸 건 이번이 처음이지만 말이다. 지난 수년동안 나는 채점제를 비판해 왔고 이 제도를 개선할 수 있는 제안서를 ISU에 제출하는데 적극적인 역할을 하고자 노력해 왔다. 내 제안서 중 몇개는 실제로 ISU에서 표결에 붙여져 규정화되었다.

당신의 편지 도입부에서 당신은 다른 전문가들도 레벨 판정이 틀렸다고 동의했다고 했다.

소트니코바와 김연아에 내려진 테크티컬 판정에 대한 내 분석은 두 명의 ISU 공인 테크니컬 스페셜리스트에 의해 이미 검토되었으며 그 둘 모두 내 분석 결과에 동의하였다.

간단히 말해서 당신은 어떤 목적으로 편지를 썼나? 실제로 당신은 ISU에 편지를 보낸 후 피겨계의 다른 사람들에게 이를 알리려 노력해 왔다.

편지의 목적은 빙상 커뮤니티의 다른 이들에게 이번 올림픽에서 테크니컬 패널이 얼마나 형편없는 판정을 내렸는지, 그리고 얼마나 형편없이 가산점이 주어졌는지를 알리려는 것이었다. (경기 직후) 다수의 피겨 전문가들은 경기결과가 잘못됐다는 자연스런 반응을 보여 주었지만 이를 두고 실제적인 분석은 충분하게 이루어지지 않았다. 경기가 끝나고 며칠이 지나자 소트니코바가 김연아보다 채점제를 더 잘 이용했고 현 채점제의 규칙 (물론 좋은 규칙이라는 뜻은 아니지만) 덕분에 김연아 보다 더 많은 점수를 획득하는게 당연했다는 이야기들이 나오면서, 논쟁을 "그만 두자는" 분위기가 생겨났다. 하지만 이런 이야기들은 결코 맞는 말이 아니다. 현 채점제에 근거해서 조차도 소트니코바는 경기의 승자가 될 자격이 없었다. 테크니컬 패널에 의해 실제 경기 요소들에 대해 잘못된 판정이 내려졌으며 많은 경우 (선수들에게 준) 저지들의 가산점이나 구성점수 또한 완전히 잘못되었기 때문이다.

테크니컬 패널이 얼마나 형편없는 판정을 했는지, 저지들이 얼마나 형편없는 가산점을 줬는지 (모든 사람들이 아직까지도 의아해하고 있는 것은 이전에 부정 행위로 자격이 정지됐던 심판이 어떻게 다시 국제 경기에서 심판을 볼 수 있게 허용이 될 수 있었나 하는 것이다)... 이러한 것들은 부정 행위를 증명할 가능한 예가 될 수도 있는 것이다. 이번 올림픽의 테크니컬 패널과 저징 패널 중 몇몇이 이번과 같은 경기 결과를 만들어 내도록 뇌물을 먹었거나 위협을 받지 않았다면, (이런 결과를 설명할 수 있는) 남은 유일한 방법은 그들이 무능력했다는 것 밖에는 없다. 무능력한 심판들은 더 이상 그 일을 해서는 안 된다. 나아가 나는 내 분석이 현 채점제가 갖고 있는 개선해야 할 결점들, 특히 이번 올림픽에서의 과도하게 복잡한 스텝시퀀스가 갖고 있는 결점들을 보여줄 수 있기를 바란다.

Was scoring for the ladies figure skating acceptable?

http://www.feverskating.com/fevers/64956111

(2014/02/23)

USA TODAY>>

Brennan: Official says judges slanted toward Adelina Sotnikova

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/brennan/2014/02/21/figure-skating-scandal-sochi-olympics-adelina-sotnikova-yuna-kim/5680717/

A high-ranking Olympic figure skating official, who spoke to USA TODAY sports on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the topic, said the geographic makeup of the judging panel "was clearly slanted towards (Olympic gold medalist) Adelina Sotnikova," adding "this is what they can do."

...

The Ukrainian judge, Yuri Balkov, was suspended for one year when he was tape-recorded trying to fix the ice dancing competition at the 1998 Nagano Olympics. The Russian judge, Alla Shekhovtseva, is married to the powerful general director of the Russian figure skating federation, Valentin Piseev.

1. Sotnikova’s PCS

Her PCS has increased by a total of 19.48 points (counting both short and free skates) in a space of 6 months.

PCS	Cup of China	Trophee Eric Bompard	Grand Prix Final	Olympics	Total increase
Free	60.31	64.65	60.47	74.41	+14.1
Short	30.17	30.77	30.85	35.55	+5.38

The NY times Kurt Browning,

“I was shocked. What, suddenly, she just became a better skater overnight? I don’t know what happened."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/sports/olympics/adelina-sotnikovas-upset-victory-is-hard-to-figure.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1

This year, Sotnikova’s PCS was consistently scored at 30 points in the short program and 60 points in the free. It was not until the European Championships that Sotnikova’s PCS started to increase at an astonishing rate; the Olympics saw even further increase. That is a meteoric climb by figure skating standards. Generally speaking, judges tend to keep PCS of an athlete at a certain range.

The question is, has she shown improvements in her skating skills as to merit such an increase? The PCS does take into account some subjective areas of judgement but subjectivity itself should not be an excuse for anything. There are guidelines and rules which ISU provides and should be adhered to as objectively as possible. For fair play to be upheld in the sport, the marks given, even if they are subjective, should always be justifiable on the basis of those standards.

The dramatic inflation of Sotnikova’s PCS also begs the question of whether she is actually at a level where she might be awarded similar marks as Carolina Kostner or Yuna Kim. They are mature skaters who have been consistently awarded higher PCS. Taking into account this consistency and Sotnikova’s increase, it is more than a little puzzling that Yuna’s PCS has been scored at 7 points in the Olympics by some judges.

2. The edge call on the triple Lutz

Lutz is differentiated from flip by the take-off edge when entering into the jump. The former uses a deep outside edge and the latter an inside edge. If this distinction is not upheld by the judges, there would be little point in awarding different marks for each jump. The judging call on the wrong edge take-off in the Olympics is all the more interesting in light of this fact: from 2013 World Championships to CoC, TEB, GPF and The European Championships, she tried 3Lz 7 times and was found to have used the wrong edge 6 times.

As the replay of her program will show, Sotnikova still jumped with the wrong edge in the Olympics. But there was no wrong edge mark in her protocol.

In fact, she received positive GOE for jumps that were done with the wrong technique. According to current rules, judges can request a super-slow video replay video of the jumps to verify the edge call. How could have the judges missed it?

3. The Under-rotation on the 3T in Sotnikova’s 3LZ ? 3T in the free program

It goes without saying that to be awarded full marks for a jump, it must be fully rotated or at least come within the margin of rotation that ISU has deemed acceptable. That her 3T was under-rotated by 1/4 or 1/2 was visible even to the naked eye without the slow-motion replay. And as has been pointed out above, there should have been further deduction for her wrong edge along with the deduction for the under-rotation. Instead she was awarded plus GOE for the combination. Furthermore, 3T requires skaters to use the toe pick during the take off. Instead, Sotnikova used the full blade to jump off the ice?

a completely wrong and improper jumping technique.

4. The minus GOE on Sotnikova’s 3F+2T+2Lo in the free program

In that jumping passage, Sotnikova made a big mistake on the landing of the last jump. She stepped out of the double loop and two-footed the landing. It seriously disrupted the flow of the jump. In addition, her rotation in the air was shaky. According to guidelines given by ISU, such mistake (two footed landing in particular) merits -2 to -3 level of GOE. But the penalty given was only at -0.9. Even if the judges had decided that -2 level of GOE would be sufficient, the point deducted would have been at least 1.4.

5. The call on the level of step sequence

To obtain level 4, the skaters only need to satisfy what the rule book states as necessary turns and steps as well as further elements to go up the level. Sotnikova was the only skater who got the level 4 in both short and free programs. 4 both short and free program in the Games, despite the fact others had also satisfied the requirement for it. The step sequence is about the use of turns and the edges on the ice. Skaters who do not use deep edges with consistent speed and/or do not carry out a variety of turns and steps cleanly should not be rewarded for their step sequence. It is laughable and incomprehensible that judges chose to reward Sotnikova with level 4 when they gave Yuna's step sequence (much more speed, deeper edges, spotlessly clean turns, variety of movements) level 3.

6. Awarding of GOE on the jumps

GOE 1.2

GOE 1.1

Giving positive GOE on executed jumps involves the consideration of ISU guidelines. Those include the consideration of flow, both in and out of the jumps, in-air position, and the take-off. In comparing Sotnikova’s flip with Yuna’s flip, the discrepancies in GOE are readily obvious. For one, Sotnikova clearly demonstrated poor take-off. The full blade, as opposed to just the toe, was in contact with the ice; the flow in and out of the jump also looked heavy and forced. Sotnikova's jumping mechanism is the same whether she jumps the flip or flutz (lutz with wrong edge take-off) - a clear indication of a technical flaw.

On the other hand, Yuna's flip was executed with perfect technique, blended into the choreography of the programme, with excellent flow in and out of the jump. But it was Sotnikova who was awarded the higher GOE's. One of the judges even gave Yuna zero GOE for her flip, when the quality of the jump called for plus GOE.

7. The rebuttal of the base value argument

Only 1.44 difference in the base value

The base-value argument, i.e. Sotnikova had one more triple than Yuna, is logically flawed. We only need to look at the TES in the short program to disprove it. Yuna, jumping 3Lz-3T, 3F and 2A, had more base values in jumps than Sotnikova. Yet she was awarded lower TES though her jumps were perfectly landed. Even if we were to argue on the basis of base-value argument, the difference between Sotnikova and Yuna is extremely slim. Calculating the base values in the short and free skates, there is only 1.44 separating the two. That is not even worth a double flip or loop.

The base-value argument fundamentally ignores the fact that the final score of the program also relies on the awarding of GOE as well as PCS. Whether there were 7 triples or 6 triples or 8 triples is only a very small part of the story. Mao Asada jumped 8 triples for the free program, but was scored under Sotnikova because of minus GOE. It is the actual execution of those jumps and judges’ perception of their quality that determine the marks, not the plan on the paper. It has already been said that Sotnikova’s executions of technical elements were not the cleanest on the night. But GOE given to her is something you would see given to perfectly executed elements.

At any rate, 1.44 is a difference that could be overcome by a skater like Yuna, whose quality of skating and interpretation very strongly merits a high level of positive GOE and PCS. That much is evident, easily proven by referring back to Yuna’s protocols over the course of her career. Despite the fact that her free programme was executed perfectly well, her GOE in comparison to Sotnikova’s was underscored. The base value argument is misleading in the extreme, trying to take away the attention from poor judgment calls made during the ladies’ event. The level of PCS and GOE, as well as the edge call, given to Sotnikova should be the debating point, not Yuna’s base values.

Comparing 'One-foot step' in FS : Yuna Kim and Adelina Sotnikova