#they wrote. all of season 2a thinking they were going to have a full third season. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

the-a-factor-fs-blog · 7 years

Text

Kiss & Cry - Episode 3

Welcome to the third Episode of “Kiss & Cry”, Max Ambesi’s latest podcasts series.

Sorry for the delay in posting full translation!

If you missed previous Episodes, you can catch up with it here (1) (2)

In this third Episode, Max chatted about various topics with Angelo Dolfini (former Figure Skating Italian Champion, Tech Specialist and now Figure Skating Coach, plus Technical Analyst for Italian Eurosport), while Alessandro Genuzio acted only as host.

This second podcast is 119:20 minutes long, and it’s available to be listened in Italian here: https://www.spreaker.com/user/talk-sport/puntata-3

In the following translation, (M) indicates when M. Ambesi is speaking, (A) indicates when A. Dolfini is speaking, (H) when the Host, A. Genuzio, intervenes.

Translated by The-A-Factor Team. Please do not repost without permission.

Table of Content

Finlandia Trophy Results and Analysis of Kostner's programs and the criticism she received

Ice Dance - What the first competitions of the season told us

Junior Grand Prix

Evgenia Medvedeva and her performance at Japan Open

Various Q&A - Prerotations and technical issue on jumping technique, Ice Dance, Memorable Programs, and much more

[T/n: This translation starts at 4:00. In the first minutes, Genuzio thanks listeners for the feedback over last episode, introduce Max and Angelo and lists the topics covered in this episode]

Part 1: Finlandia Trophy

Analysis of Finlandia Trophy’s result. Focus on Carolina Kostner programs and the harsh criticism she received from some corner about her scores.

(H): Let’s start with the Finlandia Trophy, an important competition which had amongst its participants, Carolina Kostner. It was the third competition of the season for her, and there has been much noise and criticism about her programs and her scores, especially from the USA corner. Are these critiques fair? You discussed about scoring in previous Kiss&Cry podcasts, and here we have other experts and influencers of the figure skating world who spoke harshly against Carolina.

(M): The topic is complicated. We already talked about it in the first two episodes – not mentioning Carolina but speaking in general terms – but we have to go back to this topic in this episode as well.

Before speaking about scores, I’d start by looking at what Kostner did at the Finlandia Trophy. All in all, her performance was passable. She missed the combo on the first element of her Short Program and didn’t try to recover it later, which is understandable. Kostner didn’t sign up to win the competition at Espoo; a Senior B competition is not a goal for someone with her career. What’s important is to test out the programs and to skate them as planned (layout-wise) for bigger competitions. She did all the jumps well, combo aside, and even on spins, you can clearly see improvement: that’s a positive.

Free program, I’d say, was an improvement over Lombardia Trophy. Someone would tell me, “How? The TES is lower!” Sure, but we shouldn’t look just at that.

First thing, and a detail that I haven’t seen anyone highlight: Some amused themselves by writing about Kostner and what she did in Finlandia, but they understood little to nothing about the Free Program. Kostner did change where elements are placed in her FP, trying to deal with jumps when she has more energy. I’m not referring to the first three jumping passes - that remained the same as in Bergamo - but to everything else. She had some trouble with the Flip in Finland, but she did everything else fine.

Compared to Bergamo, she brought the Flying Camel (Spin) from the penultimate element to the first half of the program. The Step Sequence has been put at the end, and these changes allowed her to execute all the jumping elements after the Triple Rittberger well. Carolina can do better on that Triple Rittberger, but she did rotate it and got a positive GOE on it. And from there onward, nothing to say: the solo 3T was good - first jump in the second half - and then the combo 2A-euler-2S, the other 2A, the combo 3S2T towards the end that often gave her trouble in the past. What is it missing compared to the planned layout? That Triple Flip that would change her destiny. Kostner goes for “2+6”, two Double Axel and six Triples, but she does need two Triple Flips. If she nails those Triple Flips, one in combo with a Triple Toe Loop, Kostner can easily get to 140 in a FP. In SP, her goal is 75, and overall, it’s 215.

While there are many others who can get over 220, and probably 220 will be the cut to get a medal at the Olympics, it’s also true that pressure at the Olympics is high and a clean Kostner at 215 can put even more pressure on anyone whose surname is not Medvedeva nor Zagitova. So, I do think the current planned layout and competition strategy is the correct one.

(H): But let’s talk about harsh criticism. Some, especially Phil Hersh - a well known opinion leader, went really hard against Kostner. I’d invite you to go and read (what he wrote) on his blog, where you can find very strong wordings. “Ridiculous reputational scoring”, something we haven’t really read before.

(M): We haven’t read them before on a published article by a great fan of figure skating. A journalist who followed several Olympics. Someone who, before being a journalist, is a great figure skating enthusiast. We read them on international forums. We could hear them uttered near boards. Phil Hersh put them down on paper. The topic is complex and we often talked about Kostner’s PCS. As a matter of fact, on some components, she is close to perfection. On some others, she has lost something compared to the past. In my opinion, in terms of Skating Skills, she is not the same Kostner she was three years ago, but that’s normal if we consider that she is almost 31. If we speak about Transitions, instead, it’s the component she has always struggled with. Evaluation was high at Finlandia Trophy, as it was at Lombardia. To talk about it, it needs to be considered alongside how other skaters were evaluated.

Fundamental point: The rationale behind the new scoring system was to keep the technical aspect separate from what we can grossly defined as the artistic aspect. Why grossly? Because PCS is not only artistry, it’s something of a wider scope than what was the old Presentation Score under 6.0.

If we start with that in mind, it’s acceptable that a skater - who reaches around 50, 55 on TES - can get over 70 on PCS in a free program. The opposite also happens, there are clear examples of this and we’ll get to them later.

I do believe that there are skaters who can get close to Kostner’s PCS mark, and some who can also get something more than her. More or less, she always got those scores in the latest part of her career, so if there’s a problem, it’s not linked to the judges at Finlandia Trophy, but something broader.

It’s obvious that Kostner built her programs to make some specific characteristics of her skating shine. If you look at her upper body movements, there’s a continuous flow that never stops. A judge that is sensible to that, can be pressed to give high marks for that, especially since all those movements are always in tune with music. If you instead look at the lower part of her body, at what she does with her feet, then those scores can go down, at least speaking about transitions.

I think that before saying “it’s fair” or “it’s wrong”, we need to look at the broader picture about the way PCS are being evaluated.

If skaters that are really strong on it, and I can mention Jason Brown in men’s field, get scores (on each component) above 9, I think it’s a judgement that everyone can get behind, regardless of what they show on the technical side.

Must be noted that ISU introduced a new rule, this season: “if you fall, you can’t get to 10 in any component”, and that is a singular rule, compared to the past. We can agree on that or not, but we take note.

I think it may be correct that PCS are not purely linked to the technical aspect. I’ll mention an example and then I’ll let Angelo speak his mind on the matter.

(A): [interjects] No, they should NOT be linked, at all.

(M): Example: Zhou, a skater from the USA. He did four quads, one after the other at Espoo. Some good, some not, we’ll speak about it later. But if we take that out, there’s nothing. And when I said nothing, I mean the void. There are no real transitions, there’s not a moment on music, there’s no idea of a program. He got near 100 on TES, but on PCS didn’t get near 80 - his real value was 70; and he was evaluated that way. So maybe they started thinking about evaluating what a skater really does on ice.

Then Zhou can get 120 on TES, but he should remain on 70 for PCS. And if he gets evaluated that way, that’s the right usage of the scoring system in my opinion: it would mean it has been finally understood what the goal was when scoring system switched from 6.0 to COP.

(A): Yes, exactly, that’s the point. We talked about it also in last podcast, speaking also about possible changes in the rules. I think Kostner’s and Zhou’s cases are the opposite sides of the same coin: two borderline cases where this disjunction between TES and PCS is particularly evident. It must be said that not always is it so easy to have such evident differences (between the two part of scoring), and when the two sides of scoring get closer, sometimes it becomes almost a commodity for judges to score them on the same level. And to overcome this, I think we need better preparation on the judges’ part. Judges more used to analysing programs in every detail, even where differences are not so evident. I think this is the right road to optimizing this scoring system.

Of course, any scoring system requires time to get refined. Let’s not forget that Figure Skating history is more than 100 years old and the old scoring system has been used for one century.

(M): And about Carolina, what do you think?

(A): Regarding Carolina, I think those attacks are exaggerated. We never refrained to criticize Carolina and her choices in the past. As of now, I think her strategy is good. It’s normal to have programs with errors in September - and if someone does her programs clean now - like Medvedeva - it’s correct to hail them, because that’s something out-of-ordinary, for all others is normal to have some failings on technical elements now. But it’s fair to do an analysis of what the goal is and what weapons could be used to reach it.

That said, it’s undoubtedly true that Carolina is superior by far compared to the majority of other athletes under some aspects: the maturity she can express on ice, for example, and it’s fair that this superiority she has is reflected in some part of her scoring.

And instead of saying “PCS are ridiculous”, they should be analyzed. Where they should be higher, where they should be lower. Transitions should be way lower compared to other components where she is a benchmark for everybody else. For example, if as of now we speak about Interpretation, it’s hard to put someone else - even someone extremely good as Zagitova can be and whose skating is indeed more complex - on her level, a level refined by years of experience and by everything she went through.

So, I think you can’t attack her PCS tout-court, without giving a motivation.The analysis must be more complete and detailed, differentiating where a criticism (of her high components) is fair and where her components scores are justifiable, instead.

(M): Maybe where the situation really degenerated, well that has been in men’s field.

(A): There the scenario is different again.

(M): In the men’s field, evaluation of those who are the excellence of the sport has been flattened out in terms of PCS scoring. So you have Fernandez close to Hanyu - sometimes higher, sometimes lower - Chan the same, Uno is on the same levels… maybe there the difference should be more highlighted.

We spoke about it many times, but maybe it’s time to do something on PCS scoring, maybe let the maximum go to 120...

(A): So to accentuate the gaps.

(M): Exactly. I can’t see Jason Brown getting the same PCS as Shoma Uno at Lombardia Trophy. Shoma Uno is technically superior by a great margin to Jason Brown, that’s not even in doubt, but the other one is clearly superior on everything else, and again there’s not a doubt about that either.

(A): That’s fair. The goal is to give the chance to everybody to fight with their own weapons. And at the end, you settle accounts to see who the winner is.

Certainly, it’s not something easy to do (to judge properly), because we often forget we can analyze programs in every detail, watching and rewatching videos four, five times on Youtube, while judges only have those four, four minutes and a half plus another two at max at the end of a program to give their own evaluation on the five components and on all elements’ GOEs. It’s not an easy thing to do and it explains why you have all (PCS) scores on same corridor.

(M): Going back to Carolina, the free program at Finlandia Trophy is a good example of what you just explained. Because there were some issues on the first two jumping passes, that’s true. But after that, there’s a program without any major flaws and the program’s flow is continuous, it doesn’t get interrupted and in that way, a series of program components get emphasized, and they pull up other ones as well. And this is Kostner’s strategy, the only one she can implement now at her age to try and be competitive with athletes that are miles ahead of her, now.

I want to remark on a thing: her spins. They have never been her forte, and it’s clear you don’t win competitions with them, although they help to bring home high scores. The actual Kostner is an athlete who worked on those details [t/n bringing her spins at best of her abilities], because she can’t afford to lose even just one tenth of points on them - then we should open another topic on how high her Layback Spin level can be - and, once again, that’s the right strategy (for her). There’s no B plan.

(A): Exactly. She needs to bring home as much as possible on everything that’s not “jumps” and then to keep her fingers crossed on her hardest triple (t/n the Flip). If she starts losing points on spins, her road would be even harder. On the Layback, it’s now built to reach level 4 and - breaking news - its quality improved, too. Of course, it’s not her strong point also because of her physique, but the new rules allowed for solutions to raise the technical difficulty without the need to be hyper-flexible and Carolina tried to find those alternatives. I think the work done has been good and it has already borne fruits. It should be noticed.

On jumps, she might have more chance to complete them at best once her condition gets better, and at that point, those scores you gave earlier would be plausible. Athletes who have never been consistent may not find it so simple to catch her.

(M): See, for example, Gabrielle Daleman - bronze medal at last World Championships - who struggled greatly in Finland. It must be said that she had to take a break of a month in the offseason due to a minor surgery. She started her preparation late, her two new programs are still to be refined from start to finish, she also seemed a bit heavier – all things that are normal since she has no pressure to be in great shape now. Still, she was very far from her best. This is a skater of great power and when she is not in the best shape, she struggles to put down quality performances.

(A): That’s true. Although we need to stress out once again how much she improved, on the PCS side too: once upon a time her weak point. She is an athlete who can be a contender for Olympics, as she has shown last year. But she or Osmond, too, are athletes who may make mistakes, too. And if they do make mistakes, it may not be so simple to stay on par with Kostner, whose PCS basis is stronger.

(M): Finlandia Trophy winner was Maria Sotskova, an athlete that we aren’t discovering just now for sure. She is an athlete who is not so easy to rank in current Russian field. Medvedeva and Zagitova are on another league. But then you have (her), Pogorilaya, Radionova - although she seems to be a bit behind, right now - and then there’s a big question mark: her surname is Tsurskaya and her name is Polina. If this last one is in a good shape and no longer marred by injuries, she becomes a tough cookie for everybody else. She has quality on skating and distance and height on her jumps with no equal in the Senior category, as of now. Only Daleman’s Triple Toeloop - Triple Toeloop combo may come close to what Polina does on the great part of her jumping passes.

(A): She is an athlete we have heard of and followed around for years. She has been unlucky. But the Russian field is in good shape nonetheless. The third spot is an enigma, hard to predict. It may be Sotskova, or Pogorilaya, or a younger skater like Tsurskaya. Those you mentioned seem to be on the front line, and they may even podium at the Olympics, but the season is long and much can still happen. Inside Russia, but also internationally.

(M): Sotskova got a Personal Best in Finland and she can even complain about Short Program PCS where she could have got one point, one point and half, more. Her jumps were higher and better. She always managed to complete jumps, even if she had some problem on rotations from time to time, but quality on those elements had never been exceptional. (My) Impression is they worked hard to improve on that.

She added some features on jumps, too: and I’m speaking about Tanos, here. Not something she used to do as much. She can be competitive, too, reaching around 215 points. To go higher than that, something more may be needed and I’m not sure if she has the tools to do that ‘something’ more. Her start of the season has been convincing nonetheless.

Not many athletes went over 200, after all. Medvedeva, of course, Zagitova, Osmond and Higuchi, who is potentially a top, top skater: we will see how she’ll manage to come out from the Japanese minefield for Olympics spots.

The battle to get a spot on the Japanese Olympics Team among ladies is a topic worthy of a dedicated analysis in one of our next podcasts: I can’t remember a situation like this in Japan. With 7, maybe even 8 skaters if we add second tier ones, who can fight for the Olympics and just 2 spots to give out and to be decided in a showdown at the Nationals.

(A): There are many skaters who can aim for the team in Japan; there’s no clear leader of the field, today, and that’s the peculiar thing. The hierarchy is clearer in Russia, instead.

(M): Changing the topic to the men’s field, Finlandia Trophy showed the “state of the art” of the men’s figure skating. Many skaters tried to raise their technical repertoire. Many quads attempted. Many mistakes. Those skating a bit more cleanish, but without quads, did not win the competition. But at the same time, to risk and to bring these programs to the limit does not always give back rewards. Jin Boyang won the event, with much struggling and far from his best shape. Vincent Zhou skated better in his Free Program than in his Short one. But what surprises (the most) is Adam Rippon, who made few mistakes but did not have the points to overcome skaters who made many, many mistakes. And, again, it’s this detail that causes doubts to arise about the actual scoring system.

(A): Yes, even if some adjustments have already been taken. Let’s remember the rules on falls, for example [t/n: after third fall, deductions increase]. To dissuade from putting too many quads in a program that can give way to many falls. But the chosen path (by skaters) remained the same, and Boyang - even with many underrotations and a third place in the free skate - won the event; Zhou did many quads - some well done, some badly done - and even with low PCS - 10 points lower than Rippon, he stayed ahead. So the road is that one. And should they complete everything they plan, the gap with Rippon would have been far greater.

(M): And what could that mean for the Olympic Team on the USA front? That Jason Brown may remain home. How? Nathan Chen seems to be on another level compared to others. Zhou has much more points (than him) in his hands. And even a skater like Max Aaron - who already declared that he will go for two quads in SP and three in FP - who is weak on PCS side, if he lands everything, he can overcome Jason.

(A): Chen and Zhou seems ahead of others, but after those, Aaron, Rippon and Brown can all contend for that third spot. It’s an analysis that may be right, but we need to see which meter-of-judgement USFSA will decide to implement at the Nationals and what they want to favour, but the math is that.

Nathan Chen is impossible to leave at home. Vincent Zhou is too weak on the PCS side right now to compete with the other big names, but he is an interesting prospect for the future. The other three have no chance of (Olympic) medals, that is the reality. Too many others need to fail for that to happen. Still, they have three spots and that’s good (for them) and something they achieved on their own merit.

(M): About Pairs. Very well, Della Monica/Guarise, who skated an amazing Free Program. These skaters keep improving, year after year, hats off to them. Especially to Guarise whose past is in another discipline, a summer one: although Artistic Roller Skating is a sport good for every season, it’s not an Olympic Sport, which is the reason why Matteo decided to switch to ice. Matteo is the most successful European skater who made this switch. In North America, there have been other impressive examples, maybe more in other (ice) disciplines [t/n skipped brief excursus over skaters coming from roller skating and switching to speed skating]. So hats off to Matteo for the level he reached. Italy can count on two good Pairs, even if not up to the highest level of top ones. Top ones who - in some cases - showed to be still in search of a good condition. Stolbova/Klimov, to mention one of them.

(A): Their FP has been quite subpar, especially. A program in which they missed two elements: a lift and a spin invalidated, plus other mistakes, with another lift that got a no level, falls… But let’s not forget that Matteo and Monica managed to win the Free Program (over such a skate from S/K) also over couples like Peng and Jin, Canadian Lyushechkina/Moscovitch and Astakohva/Rogonov. It’s still early, many things need to be refined, but Matteo and Monica did go over 190 points in two different competitions and it’s not something to snub at.

(M): Indeed, right now (based on current condition), even Canadian Pairs - to mention a nation with great strength and tradition in the field - don’t seem so far from ours. We still need to see Marchei/Hotarek at their best, since they showed last season they can go over 200 points. Of course, medals will be won at the Olympics with over 220 points, probably even more. But our Pairs can aim for a good placement in the top 10, which would be an amazing result considering the depth of the current field.

(A): Amazing result also in light of our non-existent tradition in the discipline. Italian Pairs showed good quality over the last season. Marchei/Hotarek at Worlds, especially. Right now, Della Monica/Guarise are in better shape, but in any case both teams can aim for a prestigious result. Not a negligible detail, but they can all schedule their preparation for Olympics, totally relaxed, since there are two guaranteed spots and they are already sure of their place.

(M): Speaking of Della Monica/Guarise, they are acquiring good confidence on their historically weak point: side-by-side jumps.

(A): Triple Salchow gave good results also in the past, but that Triple Toeloop-double Toeloop is a new development. And to have two different triples to execute side-by-side can help them become an even more competitive couple, especially considering their already good quality on all other technical elements.

(M): A Pair that we are expecting to break 200 wall soon. A wall broken only by Marchei/Hotarek among Italian (pairs) skaters, and a wall that so far has been broken only by Russian Pairs, James/Cipres and German Pairs - but only with Savchenko on the team [t/n: in Europe]. We can be satisfied. Of course, Italian Pairs are not aiming for an Olympic Medal, we need to be clear on this. But a placement in top-10 would be an historical and an epic achievement, I want to repeat this point as well.

Part 2: Ice Dance

An analysis of the first competitions of the season.

Credits as shown

(H): Taking cue from some of the questions we got last week, let’s focus on the first Ice Dance competitions and let’s examine the situation thoroughly.

(M): Well, clearly, the hottest topic right now is the battle between Canadians Virtue/Moir - veterans of the discipline who have already won everything - and the younger French team Papadakis/Cizeron.

Last year the Canadians clearly prevailed, they only lost one segment of a competition - the free dance at the Worlds in Helsinki. In that competition, Papadakis/Cizeron won the free dance, thanks to some mistakes by Virtue/Moir, but this season, things seem more balanced.

Surely, analyzing the situation so early in the season isn’t easy. What’s evident right now is the scores those two teams obtained in their first competition - are frankly too high for the rest of their competitors. We have yet to see the Shibutani siblings and Chock/Bates, but the impression we got is that the Canadians and the Frenchies are on another level.

I’ll focus on the scores they received in their first outing and then we can go on discussing the technical aspects and the music choices. Obviously they took part in different events, even though they see each other very often on the ice - since they both train in Montreal under Marie France Dubreuil and Patrice Lauzon. My impression is that, on PCS, they’re basically on par, while on short dance GOEs, it’s the Canadian team that has an edge on the French - by the way they went for the same layout as last season, which was indeed the key to their success in this segment. In my opinion, Virtue/Moir’s short dance is ready and finished already, they have yet to reach level four on both step sequences but they didn’t go too far from it - getting unanimous +3 GOE on your level 3 step sequences is already a good omen for that.

If we look at the free dance, things are different, because here, the French team got better results in terms of GOE. In short, Virtue/Moir have an edge on the short dance, while in the free dance, it’s the opposite. The question is “Who will take the responsibility to award the victory in this case: the panel of judges or the tech panel?”

Why am I saying this? Well let’s look at what happened in the last two World Championships. In Boston, the technical panel gave level 4 on each element to all top teams - something I had never witnessed before in my life - basically washing their hands of it and letting the judges define the final ranking with GOEs and PCS.

In Helsinki, very few teams got level four on their step sequences, so in that case, the technical panel really made the difference.

What’s going to happen now? Considering how the two teams were scored in their first competition, my opinion is that the real difference could be lying in those level fours’ I mentioned earlier. From what we saw, Virtue/Moir are certainly closer to level four in the short dance. (A): So it could seem. Surely they have an edge on the short dance, they proved it last year already. Maybe it’s because they have more experience, or it’s because they come from compulsory dance, I don’t know. On the technical level, the difference is still minimal though. In the free dance, maybe it’s the French team’s athleticism that will make the difference. Let’s not forget that a free dance is more demanding and that there are more technical elements to perform, so their physical fitness could favour them, and they could manage to minimize the risk of making mistakes on the “bigger” elements thanks to that. If we look at the PCS, in my opinion the Frenchies might have a little advantage there too. Provided that we’re talking about two outstanding teams and that both have incredible flow and beautiful glide, I wonder if Papadakis/Cizeron’s major athleticism could favour them the same way it happened with Davis/White.

Nevertheless, it’s still too early to tell who’s the favourite in this battle. The one thing that’s clear is that the rest of the competition will have to fight for the third spot. (M): Yes, but if we look closely, Virtue/Moir still have something more than the others when it comes to footwork or step sequences, and that’s what is likely to make the difference between winning and losing. (A): Sure, but I believe many factors will come into play, and many small details will make the difference in the end. I just want to add that Virtue/Moir’s first competition was on home ice, while Papadakis/Cizeron competed in Finland, so I’d still wait for the Grand Prix to give us more evidential data. (H): Speaking of judging and Ice Dance, the judges draw by number was released recently. Since politics play a huge role in Ice Dance, how will this draw influence the biggest competitions of the season? (M): Good question, complicated yet intriguing. As far as the battle between Papadakis/Cizeron and Virtue/Moir is concerned, I don’t think the judges’ nationality will play a decisive role, but other schools might have more political power than Montreal’s. Let’s get into details. Seventeen countries qualified their teams for the Ice Dance competition at the Olympics, and after Nebelhorn Trophy, thirteen out of this seventeen countries were chosen to send a judge at the Olympics following a draw. So, there are thirteen countries that will each send a judge to Pyeongchang, and before the short dance, there will be another draw to select the nine judges that will make up the judges panel.

As a matter of fact, four countries won’t have a judge in the Ice Dance event at the Olympics for sure, and these countries are: Czech Republic (with a team coached by Igor Shpilband), Korea (with a team coached by Igor Shpilband), Germany (with a team coached by Marina Zueva) and Great Britain (with a team coached by Igor Shpilband). As you can see Igor Shpilband lost three judges after this draw - a real catastrophe!

It’s true that judges should be super partes, but it’s rarely so.

Looking at the first draw I’d say Zueva’s group is the most powerful right now, as they have American, Japanese and Israeli teams and they are close to Italy for a number of reasons.

As for Papadakis/Cizeron vs Virtue/Moir, it’s basically the Canadian judge vs the French judge, with the Spanish judge as a variable, but we don’t know which Spanish team will be at the Olympics yet. It might be Smart/Diaz, coached by Dubreuil and Lauzon, or Hurtado/Khaliavin, coached by Alexander Zhulin. So, unless the final draw doesn’t exclude one between the French and the Canadian judges, I’d say the panel composition won’t affect Papadakis/Cizeron and Virtue/Moir too much. I repeat, judges should be impartial but they’re humans too and, following some teams for a long time, they might lose a bit of objectivity sometimes. What do you think, Angelo? (A): Your analysis is indeed interesting, even though in my opinion, the real difference will lie in each performance, but what you say is true, no doubt. That said, judges usually follow the teams in practice sessions too, they see which are the ones looking stronger, and often they take into account not only what they see on the day of the competition, but what they saw in training throughout the whole week as well.

Provided that Ice Dance is really difficult to judge, I’d say that the battle for third place will be the one more influenced by the panel composition, since there are many teams - many countries and many schools - involved in the battle.

At the moment it’s really difficult to predict who’s going to take the bronze - mostly because we have yet to see many of the teams that will fight for that spot.

You mentioned the Shibutanis, who are coached by Zueva, so they might benefit from her power at the Olympic stage. I’d add Hubbell/Donohue - who blew their chance of a top-three finish last year at Worlds - Cappellini/Lanotte, the Russian teams...

I believe it’s going to be a long season and maybe something will break the equilibrium along the way.

Part 3: Junior Grand Prix

T/n Podcast was recorded before Egna Event.

Credits to Rika Kihira own website

(H): We have a lot of questions from our listeners on Pairs and Ice Dance, but first let’s have a look at the Junior Grand Prix, with only one event left this season.

(M): Ok, for sure the ladies event is the most interesting here because, for the first time in history, there will be six skaters who could qualify for the Final at the same competition, and three of them will most probably get their ticket for the Final in Egna.

Let’s first say that there will be four skaters coached by Eteri Tutberidze in the final and this is already an unprecedented event - someone was telling me that they would’ve been five if Shcherbakova wasn’t injured, but it’s not true, because probably one of this year’s finalists wouldn’t have taken part in the JGP if Shcherbakova was healthy, and this really says it all about the depth of Tutberidze’s school.

Given what happened in the previous events, I’d say Kostornaya is a lock for the final, same as Samodurova who isn’t really on the same level as her countrymate - nor the other finalists to be fair - but she took advantage of Tarakanova’s mistakes and won the event in Zagreb.

Then we have the Japanese ladies, and both of them are fighting for a spot in the Final: a second place here will be enough to qualify, even a third one could do, depending on the scores.

The two girls fighting for this spot are Rika Kihira - Japanese junior lady with a triple Axel and she landed several in today’s practice - and the rookie Nana Araki, who was second in Minsk and, right now, she’s even above Kihira in the standings.

Who could be the dark horse in this event? I’d say Korean Young You. She needs to win the event to have a chance for the Final, but depending on other skaters’ placements, even winning might not be enough to make the Final. Even if she doesn’t win, in my opinion, she has the qualities to make the podium and, who knows, she could spoil the party for one of her competitors.

I don’t think Alyona Kostornaya will be in danger, as she has set the highest score in a JGP event at her international debut, while uncertain if she would get a second assignment. This is amazing, c’mon.

Anyways, the level will be really high in this event, I don’t recall having so many talented skaters at the same competition, lucky those who will be there to watch it live.

(A): Indeed, the fact that there will be two skaters who have already won an event is something unprecedented too.

I am a huge fan of Kihira’s so I hope she will do well, but I’m sure the entire event will be of great quality.

(M): Even the men’s event will be interesting, and the Italian guys could really aim high.

In Poland, Matteo Rizzo came really close to writing history as he brilliantly made second place after the short program, but then collapsed in the free skate. But let’s not forget he took part in two big competitions already, so there was a possibility that he could have been a bit low on energy.

I think he can try again in Egna and, in my opinion, he could have aimed for the final for real this season. But even if the chances are gone now, I still think he can get on the podium in this event.

There will be Daniel Grassl as well, rising athlete who has some big technical elements already and works on others in practice - quads included. If he manages to land the triple Axel, he could be a nasty rival for many of his competitors. And he will be skating on home ice, as he trains in Egna under Lorenzo Magri’s tutelage.

All in all, I think the Italian guys can play a big role in this competition. This is huge news because men’s is Italy’s weakest field since forever - even though many years ago, Karel Zelenka managed to get second place in a JGP event in Poland, ironically. (A): Yes that’s true. Well, it was a real pity that Matteo couldn’t make it last week in Gdansk, especially after skating such a good short program.

In my opinion, he has a good chance of making the podium in Egna. He has already scored over 220 points in international competitions, and even if junior competitions have different regulations, I believe he can be on the podium, as long as he stays above 200 points, which is absolutely within his reach.

Surely, qualifying for the JGPF would have been the cherry on the cake, but let’s not forget that Matteo has already achieved important results at the beginning of this season: he skated really well at Lombardia Trophy and, most importantly, he was able to earn [Italy] a spot for the Olympics at Nebelhorn Trophy.

Having two skaters who can do well in a JGP is really unprecedented for Italy and we’re even prouder because they are, in fact, two athletes born and bred in our country.”

(M): There will be promising Italian junior ladies too and they could aim at an important placement - of course behind the skaters we mentioned earlier. This competition will be important for them to gain experience in international events.

We will see Lucrezia Gennaro, who has already competed in the JGP in the past; Lara Naki Gutmann, at her international debut; and Elisabetta Leccardi, who could aim at 7th place. (A): Yes, Elisabetta competed at last year’s Junior World Championships as well and she has technical potential. Lara Naki has nice skating and good interpretation skills, and Gennaro has the chance of doing well too. (Un)fortunately, the level of the ladies’ competition is really high, so there won’t be any chance for the girls to fight for the podium (contrary to the men’s event), but it will still be a great opportunity for them to gain experience.

Let’s remember that, as far as the top skaters are concerned, a JGP ladies’ competition is on par with a senior ladies GP event and, in many cases, the technical level is even higher in the junior field - just to remark, once again, how much quality we have in these competitions. (M): And let’s not forget that Italy has some other good junior ladies like Lucrezia Beccari, who will compete in Nice this weekend alongside Alessia Tornaghi, and Marina Piredda, who is an interesting skater.

Anyways, there are six junior ladies with nice potential at the moment but we have yet to determine who will be able to make that final step to be competitive in seniors as well - by the way, Leccardi and Gennaro are already age eligible for seniors.

(A): You’re right, the others are younger. Besides, being competitive internationally at the junior level isn’t easy. We’ve had Kostner who had a good career in juniors, Berton as well, but lately the level is just too high and qualifying for the Final is nearly impossible.

As I said, the important thing is to gain experience in these competitions so that they can grow more and be ready to take part in the European Championships, where Italy has always had first class results.

Part 4: Evgenia Medvedeva

Her performance at Japan Open. (Plus a question about Nina Mozer)

Credits to the rightful owner

(H): Speaking of first class results, I think it’s the right time to talk about Evgenia Medvedeva and her performance at Japan Open. I will take cue from this question we received tonight, “Max, which of the two free programs skated by Medvedeva this season did you like the most? What do you think about Nina Mozer?” (M): Let’s start with Mozer. I’d say she’s almost a guru, a true icon of Pairs skating. She’s the coach of reigning Olympic gold and silver medalists - Volosozhar/Trankov and Stolbova/Klimov - and most likely, the three Russian pairs we’ll see at the next Olympic Games will be her pupils.

Della Monica/Guarise had the chance to work with her as well, and their improvement is for everybody to see, but let’s name another pair - since someone could accuse me of being biased - Cain/Leduc, they began working with Mozer and they improved leaps and bounds. Mozer’s staff is undoubtedly of the highest quality, one of her collaborators is Robin Szolkowy, who won everything in his career but Olympic gold - not bad, I’d say. Hats off to this coach, who isn’t only a coach, as she supervises every aspect in her school. (A): Yes, for me, the keyword here is “staff” as Mozer’s staff is not only of the highest quality but also one of the most complete we can find internationally. Many have tried to start a collaboration with her but not everyone succeeded... I’m thinking of James/Cipres, for instance. (M): But the situation was different in that case, as it was the Russian Federation who forbade having foreign athletes train in Russian schools. And I’d say they almost had a premonition, since this pair has great potential, and they’re in the running for an Olympic medal in every respect.

(A): For sure the Russian Federation was farsighted, but I bet Mozer was a bit disappointed, as it’s a pleasure for a coach to be working with such talented skaters.

(M): Indeed. And, you know Nina Mozer always wants to work with two pairs on the ice at each session, so Nicole and Matteo became the fourth pair in this case, sharing the ice with Stolbova/Klimov - not exactly two ill-equipped skaters - while Tarasova/Morozov train together with Zabiiako/Enbert. In this situation, with such a stimulating environment, you can only improve. It’s natural.

(A): Yes, those are the factors that make Mozer’s school the best out there. So, to answer the question in short, we can only admire Nina Mozer and her team. (M): The question was about Medvedeva originally. What can we say? She has an unbelievable confidence in her skills, something I have never seen even in the best Yuna Kim. Medvedeva always delivers when it matters, her consistency is otherworldly.

I think we must highlight what she did at Japan Open as she performed a completely new free skate to the soundtrack of Anna Karenina, changed the layout, and yet, skated a perfect program like nothing had changed from the beginning of the season.

She was even under pressure since both her rivals - Zagitova and Mihara - had performed to the highest level, hitting a very high TES and receiving good PCS as well, so she had some pressure. But she went out there and owned her performance like nothing.

There’s little to say, her quality is extraordinary. To answer the question, I’d say I prefer this free program rather than the one choreographed by Ilya Averbukh.

The new free program is choreographed by Daniil Gleikhengauz, former single skater and ice dancer, who is now one of Tutberidze’s closest assistants. He’s the one in charge of choreographing for all the junior skaters there and he has an innate chemistry with Evgenia.

I think this program is a better fit for her, but don’t get fooled by the layout: she used last season’s layout as this program is still a work in progress - I think she’ll move most of her jumps in the second half like she had originally planned - and even so, she still wins competitions with a huge gap. (A): I agree with your analysis, I have to say I like this program more and I noticed some transitions have changed. She has a different entry on her Loop, for instance, and there are new and more interesting things added to her repertoire. Nothing much to add on the rest, her consistency is outstanding and it’s definitely her trademark. Despite some excellent performances by her rivals, she goes on the ice and showcases all her power. Definitely a fierce competitor, she never gives an inch and that’s why she’s rightfully the reigning World Champion and the great favourite for the Olympic gold. (M): That’s exactly the most important aspect, she didn’t rest on her laurels as some other great skaters did in the past - Plushenko, for instance. Evgenia doesn’t stop, and if you look at her jumps this season, you can see she has new difficult features and she’s raising the bar again - particularly on the triple Loop. (A): Yes. She has this constant desire to improve and keeps working hard, which is indeed uncommon for an athlete who has won as many titles as she has. So hats off to Evgenia and let’s not forget she’s still incredibly young.

(M): Yes, she has yet to turn 18 - even if her birthday is approaching fast - so that speaks volumes about her career so far. And by the way if you compare the average of her total scores to the highest of her competitors’ you see that hers is still the one to beat. Another sport for real.

She’ll have some competition this season, as Zagitova is a tough rival, and even the Japanese ladies seem ready to fight – I fear they might arrive at the Olympics tired and really low on mental energies, but we’ll talk about it another time.

Part 5: Q&A Session

Questions from listeners: Ice Dance, Prerotations on jumps and others technique shortcomings, Memorable Programs and much more.

(H): Let’s get to the next question. Now, this is a quite peculiar question: “I’d propose to “retire” certain pieces of music that have been used in programs that made history, like you do with some players’ jersey numbers. Could it be done?

(M): Maybe it could be done in a perfect system, in my opinion [laughing]. So, the Romeo & Juliet used by Hanyu would never be used again [laughing again]. And it would be for the best, to be honest, because we have seen people try and then give up on their programs…which were reckless at best. Just look at Vincent Zhou. And it’s not like Hanyu won a world title with that program, but still, it’s an iconic program. There are a lot of programs we could recall – going back to 1984, Torvill/Dean’s Bolero, Katarina Witt’s Carmen - and even in recent years, there were many remarkable programs; Hanyu’s actively contributed to it. I do think it’s a bit reckless for some skaters to use music that everyone associates to a certain skater and an amazing program, because they’re easy to compare… and if you are an amazing athlete, you might try to do it, but if you aren’t, you’ll be at a disadvantage from the start.

(A): Yeah it might not end well. But at the same time, it would be a shame to withdraw certain music, because, as you said, it might be interesting to see a great skater use an iconic piece of music and give their own interpretation of it. So, it would have its positive and negative sides… I’d say it’s up to the skater’s common sense [to decide whether to use it or not].

(M): I was thinking about one piece we haven’t heard in a while: Edvin Marton’s The Godfather, used by Plushenko in 2006. It was an incredibly fast program; performed by the best Plushenko, who was then in an incredible physical condition. It was never used again – if not by some average skaters – and not without reason, in my opinion.

(A): Yes, there are some peculiar cases like this, in which you need a skater that is able to pull off a certain kind of program. But a different case came to my mind, like Lysacek’s Carmen. So the “male version” of the Carmen, which was interesting. In the ladies’ field the battle of the Carmens’ always comes to mind…although Witt’s Carmen is still the most iconic. Even in ice dance, we have seen some interesting takes on it. To retire them would be a pity, but the question is interesting. It’s true that sometimes, seeing a skater use an iconic piece of music, linked to another skater, without being able to truly pull it off… might make some fans chuckle.

(H): While we’ve rarely seen skaters use Mozart’s Requiem…because whoever used it has never had great luck with it. Jokes aside, another question: “During the 2015-2016 season, Max and Angelo were talking about a ‘quad era’ for pairs, so why didn’t many pairs try a quad throw?

(M): We were mostly talking about technical progress; this progress wasn’t just related to throw jumps, but also side-by-side jumps – someone even tried, and landed, a 3-3 combination. Some pairs attempted quad throws, some quad twists – the latter were usually better executed than the former – and now we mostly see only axel lasso and reverse lasso when it comes to lifts – the ones with the highest BV. We’ve briefly talked about it last week: trying a quad throw or a throw triple axel has its pros and cons. The risks are high, and these elements’ BV aren’t so high to warrant such risks; while for men, it is more tempting to risk [because the quads’ BV is worth it], it isn’t like that for pairs. A throw triple axel doesn’t have such high BV to risk having an element with -3 GOE and even a -1 for the fall.

(A): Yes, that’s the point. There are two factors for this: the first is this one – the low BV – also because in the men’s field, it isn’t so easy to find a triple with all +3s [so trying the quad is worth it], while the strongest pairs can all get +3 GOE for their triple throws, it’s already rare to see 0 GOE for a quad. The second reason is that, sadly, this technical progress also resulted in many pairs skaters being injured, which must be taken into account as well. There have been discussions about this and some skaters, like Trankov, even expressed their own opinions.

(M): Yes…I still think that some pairs will go for a quad at the Olympics – Duhamel/Radford need it, while others pairs don’t – maybe we’ll see more quad twists, as there are pairs who are able to reach level 4 for it. But the technical progress stopped because, at this point, taking so many risks isn’t worth it.

(A): Exactly.

(M): They’re different strategies, that’s it. Although, I’d like to add that in 2014, GOE made a difference, in the end. Let’s not forget Volosozhar/Trankov won the Olympic title with a 3S throw and 3Lo throw. Now we see many 3F/3Lz throw, but these two managed to win the title because they were able to execute every single element perfectly, with difficult entries and peculiar exits from each element: that’s where they made a difference. While Savchenko/Szolkowy planned a throw triple Axel, as it was the only way to try to beat Volosozhar/Trankov, if they were clean.

(H): Now back to ice dance, we’re talking about Cappellini/Lanotte. Someone was asking whether there will be a chance for them to show their new programs before the Grand Prix, since they withdrew from a competition of the Challenger Series. And if not testing the programs before them might be a disadvantage for them or not.

(M): Well, this season Cappellini/Lanotte have “easier” GPs. There are some chances for them to make it to the final. They’ll be in Osaka, Japan, with Virtue/Moir, but the other teams aren’t unbeatable. Then they’ll have Skate America, the last GP, where they’ll face the Shibutanis’. I do think that it’s possible for them to reach the final. That aside, it is difficult to answer. To make an example: I remember that some years ago, Cappellini/Lanotte managed to reach all level 4’s – I don’t remember if it was in the SD or the FD – in their first competition of the season. It was at Skate America. Of course, this is the Olympic season, and to be able to test the program would be good, but they had to withdraw from Lombardia Trophy and Finlandia Trophy…they won’t be in Nice this week either – Anna had a deep cut on her hand that hindered her in training, and because of this, they decided to delay their debut. There are still some competitions of the Challenger series, since they still have a month before Osaka, and I guess that if they have the possibility to compete, we’ll see them there.

(A): There aren’t many left though…there’s Minsk, not much else.

(M): Yes, but there are also other B competitions, Challenger series aside. Maybe there won’t be 7-8 judges but it would still be a good test for them. That said, Cappellini/Lanotte might even be one of the teams to beat in the SD this year.

(A): True, these are rhythms they know well and that might bring out their best qualities. They also have good assignments this year so…then of course, nothing is decided yet. There’s still Hubbell/Donohue in Osaka and Gilles/Poirier at Skate America, who might be great contenders. In theory they can do well. The most important thing for them is to be back in good shape after these slight mishaps, which made them withdraw from their first competitions.

(H): Another question about ice dance, and specifically about Papadakis/Cizeron in this case: what do you think about their music choice for the SD?

(M): Eh… - meanwhile, Emanuela, a dear friend, tells me that Anna and Luca are among the entries for Minsk, so I guess they might compete there – back to the question. I’ll repeat what I said last week: it’s not the kind of music you’d expect for rumba, they could have made different choices. If I had doubts about Virtue/Moir’s choice, then Papadakis/Cizeron’s leaves even more room for doubt.

(A): I totally agree. We could say pretty much the same for both choices, but maybe Papadakis/Cizeron’s is even worse: the music had to be adapted for these rhythms and has to be slower [than the original]. As a rumba, I don’t like it much, but that’s my personal opinion. That aside, the program does have good choreography, the skaters’ quality is undeniable, but their music choice didn’t really convince me, just like Virtue/Moir’s. We’ll see how it will be scored throughout the season in competition, compared to other teams. I was wondering why they made this choice, since there are many possibilities when it comes to rumba.

(H): Now a question about technique. Someone asked us what your opinions are about prerotation when it comes to toe jumps. Should they receive negative GOE or be called as underrotated or downgraded?

(M): Prerotation disturbs me. And it does disturb me a lot. I mean, a prerotated jump is a jump that doesn’t have the required number of rotations to call it a triple or a quadruple. This isn’t a problem just in the men’s field, but among the ladies as well: for example, I invite you to look at Miyahara’s jumps. We’re talking about prerotation, underrotation problems are another thing - someone should make an analysis of Vincent Zhou’s jumps, when it comes to this. I believe that a prerotated quad isn’t a quad, it’s time to do something about this. I don’t think Shoma Uno’s 4F is a quad, because it has 3.25 rotations, not even 3.5. At this point, we have a different definition of what a quad is, in my opinion. It isn’t just about calling it underrotated, we’re talking about someone executing a different jump from what they had planned. That’s how I see it.

(A): It’s a difficult topic. Because when we talk about toe jumps, I believe that a minimal amount of prerotation is necessary. In Uno’s and Miyahara’s cases – in which it is easier to see…well easier with slow-mo, because these things are difficult to notice at normal speed, but easier to see in slow-mo – there are two factors: the prerotation, which heavily affects the required number of rotations, but there’s also another factor, which we can see, not only when it comes to Uno and Miyahara’s Flip and Lutz, but also in Fernandez’s case – and quite striking in his case, too: he uses the whole blade to take off. And from a technical point of view, we can’t talk about a toe pick anymore, but it almost becomes an edge jump. It isn’t a Flip, but a Rittberger.”

(M): Exactly, this is a problem that Fernandez has, but that is also common among Russian skaters coming from Mishin’s school.

(A): Yes, because even Plushenko had this kind of technique. But while Plushenko’s Lutz had this characteristic as well, it wasn’t (as pronounced) as Fernandez’s.

I don’t want to heavily criticize Fernandez here: but we’re not talking about a Lutz anymore, but almost its parody, let me use this word. It’s the extreme version of the kind of Lutz technique that Plushenko had. It’s an issue also influenced by how one uses the blade [for the take off], how much of the blade, how much it takes them to take off, etc, so it’s quite difficult to intervene; how much prerotation should be considered acceptable? When does a toe jump with this technique become a Rittberger? It’s a very complex topic, but the issue is there and it should be discussed. Finding a solution is extremely difficult, in my opinion… but Fernandez’s is a Rittberger and one of the easiest to notice, and there are many similar cases. I’ve had the luck to train in the same groups with skaters like Plushenko, Vlascenko, Goebel, and I’ve had the chance to see the traces their toepick left on the ice. Plushenko’s takeoff didn’t leave the kind of trace I saw when it came to Vlascenko, whose takeoff left a really long trace on the ice, like 30 - 40cm. That one really looked like a Rittberger, so we should also discuss about how much [is acceptable and when it stops being acceptable]. It’s an interesting topic.

(M): This kind of situation isn’t penalized at all. Because we aren’t talking about a jump with wrong edge, but about a kind of jumping technique that really turns a jump into another. Do you remember a clear case of this – Jenna Mccorkell? A British skater, whose toe pick left a trace on the ice that was even longer than the one you mentioned while talking about Vlascenko. Much longer.

(A): In a way, comparing it to a jump with a wrong edge isn’t that wrong. Because if you do a Lutz from an inside edge, it’s not like you do a Lutz, you basically do a Flip, because the only different from Flip and Lutz is the edge. So if the technical panel started to call all the jumps done from an inside edge as Flips, and those done from an outside edge “Lutz”…it would become a problem, to plan seven jumping passes [t/n Angelo means that if a panel called a wrong-edged Lutz as “Flip” and vice versa, the chance of ‘Zayakking’ would be high, so to plan a layout with a jump at risk of being called “another jump” would be cause of many headaches].

(M): Do you remember when they wanted to change the rules, and not call the wrong edge anymore, but to limit the number of Lutz and Flip you could do? And if you reached three of those, the jump would be invalidated. It could be a way… but then we would see athletes take less risks.

(A): Well that’s what would happen for Uno, but not as much for Fernandez…well, no, you’d call his Flip as a Rittberger, Lutz Rittberger…he does another and that makes it three Rittbergers.

(M): Like Shoma Uno…

(A): He’d do 4Lo, 4F but he wouldn’t be able to [t/n without zayakking, since his 4F would be counted as a 4Lo], because [he already has other repeated jumps planned]. And there are many cases like this, in the past and right now. It’s not a new issue, but many skaters with these kinds of technique made it even more relevant and interesting to discern.

(M): It’s obvious that we would like to see them penalize this in terms of GOE though, so a prerotated quad, isn’t a quad that could reach +3, nor +2 probably, but there, the issue becomes quite complex and it involves GOE bullets as well.

(A): Yes it’s complex…and I’ll tell you this: I’d like to see them intervene on its GOE, but it would also be easier for the technical panel to see it, rather than the judges. So it would be even more complex to intervene, I understand that it isn’t easy even for the ISU to do something about it. The problem exists. To find a solution and put it down as a watertight rule is not that easy.

(M): Yes but the real problem is that athletes with good technique are penalized by this. And there are many cases like this, in the past and right now. Then, a real champion also makes a certain choice: they either eliminate the riskiest jump, or, by working with a good choreographer, they plan to execute that jump in a certain side of the rink [to make the issue less noticeable], or with a particular entry, like Medvedeva does when she manages to execute her 3Lz, which has a quite dubious edge, well.

(H): Another question, about ice dance in this case, but that might also be applied to other disciplines as well. Does having a different number of judges – for example, there were seven judges [in one competition] while there were eight at Finlandia Trophy – affect the score, for better or worse?

(M): Well… both ways. Maybe I get what the question meant; maybe they meant that it could affect the score, not when it comes to max or minimum score, but when it comes to the average score. So you divide the score by a different factor, depending on whether you have more or fewer judges. Obviously, if there are less judges, if the score is higher, you gain more from this. I think that’s what they meant.

(A): It doesn’t change much in terms of scores, the final score is still the average score. With more judges [and more marks], the average score might be a bit more accurate, that’s it. It won’t make a huge different in terms of personal best, for example. Even if there’s a difference, it would be minimal.

(M): If the difference was minimal, like how it happened for Virtue/Moir and Papadakis/Cizeron, then [the number of judges] might make more of a difference. Still, in the most important competitions there are nine judges in the panel.

(H): Next question: will Jason Brown complete an FP with this planned content, two quads and eight triples, two of them being triple axels?

(M): Two quads and eight triples? Eh, no. I honestly don’t think he will. Trying that kind of layout would make him lose that quality that makes his programs stand out. The set up he would need for those elements would definitely affect his choreography. If he could execute them with the kind of entries he does for his triples, hats off to him, but… Angelo I don’t know if you remember when he used to try a 3A in the second half of the program and with a difficult entry…

(A): How could I not remember it… the success rate was very low.

(M): You could already see that he was going to fall. That’s the risk. From what I gathered his quads have a higher success rate in practice but that’s pretty much how it is for everybody. I doubt I’ll see a FP with 4T, 4S and two 3A from Jason Brown. If he could do it, well, the Japan Open taught us something that we had already seen in part in Boston: you can do all the quads you want, but if someone skates clean a program with a couple of quads he can beat you, see how Fernandez won Japan Open against Nathan Chen, Uno Shoma, the first two men who were able to do four different quads, even five in Nathan Chen’s case. And yet Fernandez won Japan Open.

(A): And with a noticeable margin of victory.

(M): It’s obvious that if Jason Brown was able to do 4T and 4S in an FP, this would be a different story. But he wouldn’t be Jason Brown.

(A): Yes, it wouldn’t be in his nature… then of course, we wish to see him execute a quad well, and it’s always pleasant to see him skate clean, but what you said is the truth – this dream about two quads aside – I hope he will rotate them, but I don’t see it happening. The problem is that even doing another 3a is quite complex for him, and we are seeing athletes that do a 3A as the last jump in a program, because it’s almost the easiest jump in their program. At this moment, he can’t compete; he seems a skater from another era, - an excellent skater from another era - but still, he doesn’t have the content to compete with the others now, maybe not even at Nationals, where he might still be a contender, but he can’t win.

(M): We’ve already talked about this, it isn’t certain that he’ll go to the Olympics – and it would be a pity if he didn’t qualify – a skater like him would have been dominant in the 2007-2010 quad –“

(A): Just as it would be a pity not to see someone like Rippon, who has similar characteristics.

(M): Yes, you can compare them. Although Jason Brown’s programs are definitely more intricate than Rippon’s, and he has much more quality on skating skills.

(A): Yes, but when it comes to choreography and interpretation Adam isn’t far from him. Then, it’s true that Jason has something more when it comes to complexity and fluidity. He’s one of the best skaters when it comes to this. And he does have amazing spins as well.

(M): Yes, he’s probably the best when it comes to spins; he’s one of the few athletes who can reach the maximum points for spins, with both BV and GOE. Even Hanyu doesn’t have the same BV Jason Brown has on spins, and Hanyu is a skater with great quality on spins. Jason Brown also has many variations on spins that make him one of the top 3 skaters in the world for that. But this isn’t enough if you don’t have any quads. You said so before, he’s a skater from another era: Jason Brown could have dominated the 2007-2010 quad, he could have been there with Lysacek – given a stable 3A. Because then there’s also that problem. We’ll see an interesting skater in Egna, Andrew Torgashev – his parents used to be good athletes in Russia, especially in the junior category – who has a 4T, great skating skills and interpretation, but doesn’t have a 3A. He does a 2A, like Lambiel used to do - Lambiel won worlds without a 3A; it was the last time it happened, and it did happen during that quad, 2007-2010, when Plushenko wasn’t very focused – and Jason Brown would have probably dominated that quad.

(H): Last question of the episode: do you think that You Young has regressed if compared to 2016? I think her jumps are smaller and have less flow on the exit, what do you think about it?

(M): It’s always difficult to judge when it comes to girls, well kids, who are 10-15 years old, because of their physical growth. Their bodies are changing and it becomes more difficult for them to fully rotate jumps. We talked about Kostner last week: at that age, she used to do things we have never seen. She used to do combos with three triple Rittbergers – she did them for real, I saw them – and they were fully rotated.

(A): Yes 3-3-3 combos.

(M): But even with three triple Rittberger. Maybe after a really long set up – but she did them. She had a different body. This applies to the others as well: for example, Kim eliminated a triple at some point in her career, the triple Rittberger. She could do it with those rules without problems, it became a bit more difficult from 2011.

(A): And she paid the price in Sochi.

(M): Exactly. All of this to say that it’s all easier when you’re younger. Regarding Young You, I believe we still have to see more of her. And I believe she can do a lot more. She probably was a wunderkind, she won the national title at 10 years old with programs that impressed us, not just for their technical content, but for their intricacy as well.

(A): Yes, she already had programs with great complexity at a very young age.

(M): Which is rather unusual for Korean skaters. After Kim, everything we saw were programs built on long set ups and jumps, one after the other for four minutes. I remember I used to have arguments with people who said that Park was underscored in terms of PCS. But if your program is full of crossovers-jump-crossovers-jumps, etc, how can you reach 60 points on PCS, even if you do them well? She improved with time, hats off to her, but You Young is a more complete skater, even if compared to Korean skaters that have reached higher scores than hers during the Junior Grand Prix. She decided to train in Canada, at Brian Orser’s school, like Kim before her and at an even younger age than Kim – even if she’s coached by one of his collaborators. She certainly doesn’t lack talent, we’ll see how puberty will treat her; her programs are certainly very ambitious. She has to work on both her toe jumps, she can improve her edges. Yes, maybe she lost some quality on jumps, but only from what we’ve seen so far: I believe her purpose is to be at her best near the end of the season. You can miss the JGPF during your first year in Canada. I think they’re working to bring her to Junior Worlds in peak condition.

(A): And for the next quad.

(M): Exactly. To say that she’s regressed – like the question said – is quite harsh for a girl of her age. It’s obvious that You Young was superior to Trusova, Shcherbakova, Tarakanova, at 11 years old. Now, she’s quite behind. But here we need to repeat ourselves when it comes to Tutberidze: these girls, technique aside – since they all have different technique – have something more in terms of physical condition. Tutberidze brought ladies’ skating to its extreme, because these girls, thanks to their physical preparation, can do things that others can only dream of. That’s where the difference lies. If another coach will manage to apply the same methods…well, I think there’s a lot of talent around the world. I am thinking about Korea – not US – but Korea…Japan has a different school, they have quality when it comes to different elements, but applying Tutberidze’s methods in Korea could create some great skaters. It’s not trivial, though.

(A): No, but really…I’m thinking about Lim Eunsoo, another athlete with lots of talent – a bit messy, because she had several mistakes, but she showed interesting things during this Junior Grand Prix, You Young aside. There’s no lack of talent in Korea, for sure.

(M): But You Young is the unpredictable variable of Egna’s JGP: if she does her best, she could spoil someone’s party…and that someone might even be a Russian skater. I don’t think Samodurova is at You Young’s level. That said, it also depends on the panel for Samodurova, but looking at the future, I’d take You Young over Samodurova – maybe she’ll get lower scores now, but she’ll get higher ones in a few years. You Young, at her best, could reach the podium, and if she reached the podium, a Russian or, even easier, a Japanese girl, might not reach the final. Then, as we said, she has a few problems on toe jumps, the Flip especially; Lutz is better even though not amazing, so she’ll have to work on both, in my opinion.

(H): And with this last answer we can conclude this podcast…

And here you are the full translation of the third podcast.

As it happened in this episode, Max & Angelo will answer to questions in next one, too. So if you have any, you’d like to ask them, just drop it in our inbox.

#fs translation #carolina kostner #evgenia medvedeva #figure skating #podcast: kiss&cry #max ambesi #virtue/moir #papadakis/cizeron #junior grand prix #shoma uno #javier fernandez #technical analysis

71 notes · View notes