My review of the Worlds

We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

My review of the Worlds; ?Emily 9th??!?
Topic Started: Mar 26 2007, 03:12 PM (336 Views)
fanofgold	Mar 26 2007, 03:12 PM Post #1
Novice Posts: 177 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: November 2, 2006	A Solid Skate in Tokyo My analysis of the Worlds Going into the Free Skate or Long Program the USA's Emily Hughes found herself in a solid 6th place. The delightful 18-year old from Great Neck, NY shone on her short program. No falls and solid jumps and some amazingly fast footwork characterized her performance. Emily made the final group of the top skaters and she got to skate second in the final draw for the Long Program. She looked stronger than ever as she started her free skate and on her triple she took a hard fall. As always Emily popped right back up and kept with her lovely yet difficult program. I was surprised to hear the announcers say that Emily looked like she was skating in "slow motion." I didn't see that! She seemed maybe slower than her usual fast pace so maybe she has spoiled the commentators and judges. Emily did 5 triples and she certainly skated better than the Italian girl who fell and opened up on a couple of jumps. I thought Emily would take the lead with that performance and 4 skaters to go. That would put her in 5th if everyone else skated better and if someone really messed up, she had a chance for a 4th place or even a Bronze. Before she skated an announcer said she had a chance at a medal. Emily did not look disappointed coming off the ice. She didn't immediately seem to think she had skated poorly. Her coach didn't show signs that Emily had messed up. But the marks put her in 5th with 4 skaters to go!? That was SHOCKING!!!!???!!!!! I watched the program and then taped it and watched it again. Emily has skated better but I have seen her skate worse and get good marks. I don't really know where she was MARKED DOWN other than the obvious fall. Do they expect her to skate a-mile-a-minute every time she hits the ice? Maybe her combinations weren't as complicated or as smooth as a couple of others, but look at her spiral and her INCREDIBLE leg lift. She takes that powerful leg, bigger than some kids waist, and lifts it way way up above her head!!! Other skaters may be more limber but no one is as dramatic--not Kimmie, not Mao, not any of them. Meissner looked hesitant too but no one said she was in "slow motion." I really felt that comment was uncalled for from someone as respected as that announcer Fleming. I was STUNNED and I think so was Emily and her coach and her fans. It doesn't make sense to me. I personally put Emily in 5th overall. If she hadn't fallen she would have been right behind Kimmie and if Emily does a triple axel, then she probably would have medalled. I hope those that know more about skating than I, can help explain it and hopefully there is a place where we can see each and every mark, deduction, credit, etc., so we can be more informed and knowledgeable next time we see skating. I am afraid some of these scoring systems are going to lose the fans. This will only hurt skating. Gymnastics has gone on to a complicated scoring system that is almost impossible to follow. Maybe with interactive TV we can start getting all the marks available on the TV or PC at the push of a button. Emily should not be disappointed but I wouldn't blame her if she is a bit befuddled about the scoring--as I am. Emily should know her fans are with her and we at the Emily Hughes Forum are proud of her great skate perfomances in JAPAN. Emily, you make us proud and we send you our best wishes and kind thoughts. And yes hugs and kisses. AC



Particle Man	Mar 27 2007, 07:56 AM Post #2
Novice Posts: 125 Group: Members Member #44 Joined: January 30, 2007	I just got finished watching all of the ladies free skates for Worlds, on tape (actually I watched them a second time, in preparation for this post.) I love Emily but I consider myself very objective. There are a ton of elements, grades of execution and scoring that we unfortunately don't get to see as viewers, and I'm no expert on the finer points or actual math behind it. However, I'm quite excellent at estimation. I do think Emily was quite slow and/or non-energetic, at least for her. I didn't see nearly as much of the fire and joy that usually drives her programs. Certainly that affects us as fans, as it did the commentators, but as for the judges? I'm sure it affected her presentation marks, but it's hard to say how much. Remember this is not 6.0. We all know that, but sometimes we may still slip into a 6.0 mindset, subconsciously predicting the overall scoring based on SP placements - but placements don't matter anymore, points do (except in the case of freakish ties! And even then SP placement doesn't matter...) Carolina was in 3rd place and in points was quite a bit ahead of Emily after the short. Incidentally, I LOVED Carolina's short program. It was my favorite of all of them, and I was so moved by the beauty and grace that I was hoping she would win it overall - but also because of the US ladies' placements, knowing that there was almost no hope of them winning, given the history of the Japanese ladies' ability to win - which was proven once again. In the FS both Carolina and Emily fell stupendously during their first triples, and both of them were faltering on several other points and landings. Carolina may have had 1 more outright "mistake", but if you look at Emily's landings, many were really shaky. Also, Emily and some of the other girls had landings which LOOKED two-footed, but even on frame-by-frame replay I couldn't be 100% certain. Maybe that was a factor somewhere. And for Emily's fall - was that supposed to be a triple-double-double? Did she in turn miss all those doubles? Or was the screen graphic simply wrong on the replay? In any event, given Carolina's lead, and the fact that I'd put them pretty close on the FS, I'd have been extremely shocked if Emily had come out ahead. Points points points points points. That's what it is now, for better or worse (I would obviously say worse.) Normally Emily's programs are thrilling and exhilirating, but apparently lacking difficulty, because even when she "brings her A game" she rarely comes out on top. Given that she had no "A game" at worlds, and the fierce competition of the Japanese + Yu Na, I'm not at all surprised about a low placement, and really never even had much hope of her medalling, barring some kind of miraculous "Sarah Hughes Moment." (Ando, Asada and Kim - The Dream Team?) You may disagree about the "slow motion" comment. But regardless of catch phrases used by announcers (who incidentally had a hard time remembering the word "podium" - sorry Dick), I think it's all about degrees of difficulty, to a lesser-extent of execution, and overall the ability of the Japanese girls to totally milk the system for points. Yukari Nakano - good lord! I thought that was one of the most boring, pointless programs of the evening, marred by mistakes, and she came out in 1st at that time. If I didn't know it was hopeless before then, I certainly did once I saw her ranking. And at the end, Miki Ando came out on top with another mostly boring program (which at least had no mistakes), to beat Mao Asada - who was the only one of the 3 I really liked, or had a program that was at all inspiring. Deja Vu to Shizuka Arikawa at the 2006 Olympics, who left the competition in the dust with a stunning display of technical boredom. In conclusion - the system still needs fixin'. Balance technical merit with artistry in a way that brings life back to the sport, loosen the chokehold on individuality and flair, stop the trend where skaters have to conform so drastically to compete. Beauty, grace, elegance, and the ability to elevate the technical aspects of skating into something more than a jumping contest, something that truly moves the viewer - how many points are those worth? They better figure that out, for the sake of the sport...



tara98gold	Mar 27 2007, 01:23 PM Post #3
Senior Posts: 929 Group: Members Member #27 Joined: December 4, 2006	Emily received lower marks because three of her jumps were downgraded to doubles. So she received lower marks because of that. I love Emily and I think she skated well but throughout her entire freeskate she did seem to be breathing more heavily than usual and she did appear to be a little slower if you compare her to the likes of Yu-Na Kim or Mao Asada. Emily was lower than Alissa in the freeskate who also fell. I think Emily is great and I love and respect her but in order to get up higher she is going to need a triple-triple in her belt. All the top four ladies did triple-triples and Mao and Yukari both did triple axel's. It will be interesting to see what happens next year though. If I know anything about Emily it is that she is a hard-worker and she is someone who gets fired so if their is anyone who can step it up it is definately Emily.



Bolter	Mar 27 2007, 01:53 PM Post #4
Intermediate Posts: 41 Group: Members Member #35 Joined: January 4, 2007	I did notice when I first watched the long program that she seemed to be lacking enthusiasm, or strength, until AFTER she fell. Her arm movements in particular were slower and less inspired than Emily's usual. Though as soon as she landed the 3-2-2 jumps after the fall, that lethargy seemed to disappear. As to why she was graded down? I really have no idea from a technical standpoint, but I can speculate in a general sense. My first thought revolves around Emily's skating style. Hers is a very powerful, but marginally slower style than many other skaters. This is particularly true in relation to the Japanese contenders. Also, she doesn't try to milk the system for points. Instead she goes out to have fun and create a more artistic performance. Whatever the scores, we'll all still support and love you Emily!



fanofgold	Mar 27 2007, 03:27 PM Post #5
Novice Posts: 177 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: November 2, 2006	I guess u guys know more about this than I do. But when EH does those soaring HIGH jumps, powerful splits[not in this program], fast footwork, super stretches, etc. better than most skaters--does she get EXTRA credit for the height, the stretch, etc.?? Even if she was behind the Italian girl, she'd be much better than 9th!! May EH did leave out combos and that would result in downgrades. I think she thot she did better than 9th!!!



taytay165	Mar 27 2007, 07:38 PM Post #6
Intermediate Posts: 45 Group: Members Member #34 Joined: January 2, 2007	I was watching the Eurosport version of Emily's Short Program and one of the announcers said something that I think sums it up - he said that she skated very well, couldn't have skated that program any better, but she might be disappointed with where she ended up because of the great quality skates from the others that night. As for the Long Program, I really like this program for her, but she did seem a bit slow and more cautious. She's usually just so powerful and strong throughout that it was a bit shocking to se her this way. I think that's why such a big deal was made about it....something just didn't seem right. fanofgold - When Emily performs those elements you listed as well as we've seen her, she gets positive Grade of Execution points which increase the total score. That said, there's not a specific point value to stretch, height, enthusiasm, etc., so it's pretty subjective. Anyway, I think Emily did pretty well here. And just think about the level of competition at this championship....top 10 is pretty good!!!



tara98gold	Mar 28 2007, 01:33 PM Post #7
Senior Posts: 929 Group: Members Member #27 Joined: December 4, 2006	^^well said.



DoubleloopCrystal	Apr 10 2007, 07:58 PM Post #8
Novice Posts: 140 Group: Members Member #26 Joined: November 28, 2006	I think Emily should have placed 6th. She did do well and where did the downgrades come from?



taytay165	Apr 10 2007, 10:15 PM Post #9
Intermediate Posts: 45 Group: Members Member #34 Joined: January 2, 2007	I believe that a few of her triples were downgraded to doubles because they weren't fully rotated.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Emily Discussion · Next Topic »