Michelle's 6.0 in the LP.....

[Beezer]

For those of you who didn't think she deserved the 6.0, I have to ask, what should she do....refuse it, give it back? "Oh, thank you for your intentions Mr./Mrs. ISU judge, but so many figure skating fans are going to think I don't deserve this 6.0 so I'm going to refuse it...." Lighten up people, it's not like the 6.0 was the determining factor in who won the competition....is it really an issue??????

[littleone4eva]

You shouldn't be posting this thread on here, you should be posting this on FSW?!?

[Beezer]

I posted here because the 63 post topic "Michelle was INCREDIBLE....." contained a few "I didn't think she deserved the 6.0" and the topic was getting too long already. I will post on FSW also.....

[littleone4eva]

aaahhh, okie doke ;p Happy Halloween everyone! (Sorry, OT)

[brandy00]

Yeah, you really shoud post it on FSW, everyone is disagreeing with everyone! phew, I'd hate to be the webmaster :)

[GinnySmith]

In fact, I think I can smell smoke from the FSW burning up!!!

[chinadoll]

personally, i think she deserved the 6.0. what's wrong? was it the fall? the 6.0 was for presentation, and i think her presentation was perfect. sure, she fell, but she got right back up; she didn't slide across the ice or anything. it happened so quickly, it didn't take away from the presentation at all.

[Shallah]

On Skatefans one person was saying 6.0s should only be for perfect flawless programs which eventually got this response on the thread <a href=http://frog.simplenet.com/new-skatefans/msg17142.html>HERE</a> - scroll down to Stupid 6.0 & Michelle Kwan First comment <a href=http://frog.simplenet.com/new-skatefans/msg17142.html>HERE</a> is by Janet Hill Swan a usfsa judge {who is very very nice answering questions for uneducated skatefans :-)} where she says: "The presentation mark isn't necessarily reflective of the technical content. I would have a real problem with someone giving a 6.0 for technical merit for a program with a fall, but I don't have an argument with the presentation mark. -- Harmonious composition of the program as a whole in conformance with the music. A+ -- Skating in character with the music A++ -- Carriage and Style A++ -- Utilization of the ice surface A -- Originality A+ The fact that she had a quick up and down fall did not detract from any of the other aspects of the program. It was over in less than the blink of an eye, and quite frankly, in this program, the jumps are not the focus. They are, in the program construction, not really a more important than the connecting moves." There was another discussion on how the ISU has been encouraging judges to fully seperate the Technical Merit and Presentation scores so that if someone was techninally lacking but had awesome presentation that each score would show this and not just be with in a few tenths of each other - Which is the way it should be IMO. I guess this judge just really felt that MK showed how a program should be performed in comparison to the other skaters and wanted her to have that large a gap between their Presentation scores and MK's. Edited cuz I am tired and forgot the /a to close the link.....

[Sharon]

Maybe that explains why Maria is getting such high presentation marks even when she falls two or three times?

[sw10025]

Thanks Shallah, for the information from the USFSA judge. It was very enlightening and informative. I personally wouldn't have given Kwan a 6.0 with a fall, however, if the marks are supposed to be completely separate, maybe I would have. I think part of the reason Maria has been getting such high presentation marks despite several falls is (1) some judges may confuse maturity with presentation; and (2) her competitions so far have been of the pro-am fluff variety, with jump limitations, etc., not the premier ISU eligible only competitions, and the fluff competitions generally engender better presentation marks than the regular comps. Now, if Maria falls twice in a Trophee Lalique program like she has so far this year, and still gets 5.8s and 5.9s for presentation, that I would have a problem with. As was discussed weeks back in another thread in Skating Chat, there is a big difference between Michelle's falls and Maria's. Michelle got up quickly, she literally sprung off the ice and got back immediately into the choreography, flow and mood of her music. There was *virtually* no discernible interruption. Maria has those bone cracking falls on her hip, fanny or other parts of her anatomy that really ruin the flow, she is very slow to recover and often takes several seconds to get up and get back in sync with her choreography, and loses the character of the program in the process. Its disrupting in the same way Surya Bonaly used to just stop her choreography entirely and abruptly to set up each jump.

[Doby]

LOL. If Janet Hill Swan is really a USFSA judge, she should be careful giving incomplete or misleading information on what a 6.0 means. Or, she should update her training or knowledge. According to ALL rulebooks, a 6.0 means perfection and faultless/flawless. Michelle's fall on the 3flip certainly DID distrupt the program, even though it was a short and small one. The Presentation marks, NOT ARTISTRY, is basically an extension of the Technical marks ie. ice coverage, originality, sureness etc... Michelle's fall did violated the ease and sureness by that fall, thus it was not perfect. The Austrian judge should know better since he/she was not boxed in, meaning that he/she was not forced to give a 6.0. If what Janet Swan argued were to be true, then the 8 other judges were wrong. A 5.8/5.9 for presentation is more like it.

[taboo999]

m: LBO3@aol.com I think you should tell her what you just told us. I think she will appreciate it. I don't think she would like to lose her judging credentials for being ignorant.

[Karin]

What is with that Janet Hill thing???...explain!!!

[Karin]

If MB can get a 5.9 for 2 falls...why can't MK get a 6.0??? Hahaha...

[Doby]

I just emailed Ms. Hill about the need for clarification. Karin. Those are two separate comp. No comparison whatsoever.

[Karin]

Well...I can't help it if U don't get my sarcasm!!!...seems like you are taking life way too seriously!!!...Are you always this critical???...why don't you try posting in other MK threads??? It'll open a horizon of different things to talk about instead of dwelling and dwelling on "MK shouldn't have gotten the 6.0"... And uh...outa curiosity!!!... Are you planning on to becoming an activist for promoting the "correct and appropriate" times to award 6.0's??? Hahaha...OVA OVA OVA...

[Doby]

Karin. LOL. Thanks for the laugh. Sorry if you think that I didn't catch your sarcasm. However, I don't think it is wise to laugh it off when you know that there's need for you to understand the facts. Do I take life too seriously? Hmm...no, but only when I'm concerned with keeping people in check, such as yourself :-)

[Karin]

why Doby...you are very welcomed!!!... Oh and...apology accepted!!! And uh...you really don't have to spend your time and effort trying to keep "people in check"... For one...I'm perfectly fine...OH...that's if you'll allow me to use the word perfect!!!... lub dub lub dub...pulse still regular!!!

[muri]

say competitor A landed 4 clean jumps, had moderate footwork, connecting steps were simple, emotion to the music temperate. MK comes along with 3 jumps, intricate footwork that is harder than a 3 lutz, flawless connection of moves, brings the music to life because the music is almost lifeless, like an article posted said that one is dependent on MK to execute the music because the music itself is not listener friendly & so the listener cannot be taken away with the music, MK has to do that for us. How much more does competitor A deserve a 6.0 for presentation than MK? And if the artistry cannot outweigh the technicality of jumps in the presentation marks, then why have a presentation mark, let's survive solely on the technical mark! I support the 6.0 for MK.

[Karin]

well said... LOL...but some people ahem just can't sit back and enjoy it!!!...hahaha... Oh...the Kwan-spiral!!!...now that makes up for any mistake!!!

[muri]

I e-mailed Mrs Hill myself telling her why I support that 6.0 awarded to MK. I will let you know if she e-mails me back.

[Doby]

Just to let others who are still interested in knowing the status... After a few private e-mail exchanges with Ms. Hill, she wrote, "I would probably not have given Michelle a 6.0..." She however, added that some judges in the past, gave out 6.0s despite mistakes were due to the "boxing-in" delimna (ITA). However, as all of you should know, the Austrian judge was certainly not boxed-in to give Michelle a 6.0, because the next best skater of the night only got 5.6s as her highest marks. Karin and Muri...I hope this clarifies your confusion. Thanks for listening.

[Joshua]

I know you were concerned and all for Janet Swan, but don't you think e-mailing her about MK's 6.0, something very debatable, seems...well...a little extreme? I mean, because I've seen her posts; and I agree with her...and I too wouldn't have given her a perfect 6.0. Glad she took it so well though.