--- "naomipaiss <Naomi.Paiss@...>"
<Naomi.Paiss@...> wrote:

> Well, the idea that a judge could defend putting Goebel in first
> gives me a heart attack. Only by listing elements and not seeing
> how > they are performed, or looking at the overall quality of the
> program, > could that conclusion be defended.

Cinquanta seems to be totally missing the concept that quality
counts, and Hersh isn't calling him on it.

The article did say, however,> that > Yags would have won on
presentation (agreed)

And Plyushenko would've been 2nd in the long for similar reasons.

and that Plushy was> held > up in the short (agreed).

5 3 5 5 3 4 5 5 3

A majority of judges had him 5th; he was just lucky they couldn't
agree on who to put 4th. Although for purposes of reaching first
place from outside the top 3, 4th or 5th doesn't make a difference.
So then you have to argue that he had no right to place any higher
than Abt *or* Li. Certainly the argument could be made to put either
or both of them ahead of him, but they both had higher required
elements marks and lower presentation marks across the board -- which
ones do you want to dispute.

How many comps have we seen where the
> reigning or close to reigning poo-bah blew the short but was put in
> fourth to keep a chance to medal? I give you NHK, for example.

Which of Maniachenko, Sokolova, and/or Corwin do you think wuz robbed
of 4th place in the short?

(BTW, Naomi, do you have a tape of the NHK SPs I could borrow?)

But it may be that the six point scale is just too
> inelastic > to fit in a lot of skaters with good technical
programs, perhaps> like > the ladies' SP at SLC.

Could be. We'd need a clear outline of what is to be rewarded and
what is not worth the extra effort, or find ways to make the system
explicitly more sensitive to technical and qualititative details
other than jumps, but if that could be achieved, breaking down the
marks into specific components and *making that information public*
could indeed be a positive change.

And, of course, as I've already said many times, the judges are still
going to disagree about the fine points between good and better . . .
so even if there's change for the better in the kinds of numbers they
assign and how they arrive at them, I still think it's fairer to
convert those numbers to ordinals than to let the raw marks stand.

> But now is the time for ABC to throw its weight around, invoking
> the > sacred spirit of Roone Arledge, and tell Speedy that adding
up
> points > is worth a try, but US viewers demand to see what judge
gave what. > (At least this peevish US viewer does.)

Yeah. And not just US viewers. Anyone from any country who wants to
follow the sport as sport. Now how to convince Cinquanta of that
fact?

-Ellyn

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com