Explain the new Pro-Am math to me, please

Explain the new Pro-Am math to me, please

Post by PegLewi » Mon, 20 Apr 1998 04:00:00


Day two, Hershey's pro-am:

Team 1, Rudy + Ina/Dungjen 114.40    114.40 T2, Nancy+Puns/Swallow
                                          ----------    ----------
                                          201.45      200.60
T1 Petrenko+Bobek            +115.80    +115.80 T2 Meno/Sand+Tim G.
                                         ------------    --------------  
                                          317.25      314.00
T1 Kwan+Weiss       *****   +114.05     +120.75 ******* T2 Todd+Tara
                                          -----------     -----------
GRAND TOTALS               431.30         434.75

If the maximum score is 6.0, how did Todd and Tara score over 120.0?

Why did Kwan and Weiss score less than any other duo?

Did I miss something in the math? Or the skating?

Comments? I'm willing to be persuaded that this was "fair."

Peg

 
 
 

Explain the new Pro-Am math to me, please

Post by Tee » Mon, 20 Apr 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> Day two, Hershey's pro-am:

> Team 1, Rudy + Ina/Dungjen 114.40    114.40 T2, Nancy+Puns/Swallow
>                                           ----------    ----------
>                                           201.45      200.60
> T1 Petrenko+Bobek            +115.80    +115.80 T2 Meno/Sand+Tim G.
>                                          ------------    --------------
>                                           317.25      314.00
> T1 Kwan+Weiss       *****   +114.05     +120.75 ******* T2 Todd+Tara
>                                           -----------     -----------
> GRAND TOTALS               431.30         434.75

> If the maximum score is 6.0, how did Todd and Tara score over 120.0?

> Why did Kwan and Weiss score less than any other duo?

> Did I miss something in the math? Or the skating?

> Comments? I'm willing to be persuaded that this was "fair."

> Peg

I'm convinced that they just decided to make up
a bunch of numbers and throw them around.

Not that it really matters all that much.
Everyone got a giant hershey bar at the end.

--
X-no-archive: yes

 
 
 

Explain the new Pro-Am math to me, please

Post by Chuck » Mon, 20 Apr 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>Day two, Hershey's pro-am:

>Team 1, Rudy + Ina/Dungjen 114.40    114.40 T2, Nancy+Puns/Swallow
>                                                 ----------    ----------
>                                                 201.45      200.60
>T1 Petrenko+Bobek            +115.80    +115.80 T2 Meno/Sand+Tim G.
>                                         ------------    --------------
>                                          317.25      314.00

Ummm.... in the figures you listed above, you made an arithmetical error when
adding together Meno/Sand & Timothy Goebel's scores.

200.60 + 115.80 = 316.40, not 314.00

Quote:
>T1 Kwan+Weiss       *****   +114.05     +120.75 ******* T2 Todd+Tara
>                                          -----------     -----------
>GRAND TOTALS               431.30         434.75
>If the maximum score is 6.0, how did Todd and Tara score over 120.0?

Therefore, Todd and Tara's score would have been (434.75 ) - (316.40), not
(434.75) - (314.00).

Which means that Todd and Tara's combined score was 118.35, not 120.75.

Quote:
>Why did Kwan and Weiss score less than any other duo?

That, I don't know.  Maybe there was something in Weiss's skating that I missed?
(I really doubt the error was on Michelle's side, she looked good.)

Quote:
>Did I miss something in the math?

In the math, I'm afraid.

Hope this helps.
--
Chuckg

 
 
 

Explain the new Pro-Am math to me, please

Post by Peggy Schmi » Mon, 20 Apr 1998 04:00:00

I also had a question aboutthe scoring.  According to the list of
competitiors - Team Tara/Todd had one more competitor than team
Michelle etal. How did that extra team factor into the scoring?  

Anybody know?

Peggy

Quote:
>Day two, Hershey's pro-am:

>Team 1, Rudy + Ina/Dungjen 114.40    114.40 T2, Nancy+Puns/Swallow
>                                          ----------    ----------
>                                          201.45      200.60
>T1 Petrenko+Bobek            +115.80    +115.80 T2 Meno/Sand+Tim G.
>                                         ------------    --------------  
>                                          317.25      314.00
>T1 Kwan+Weiss       *****   +114.05     +120.75 ******* T2 Todd+Tara
>                                          -----------     -----------
>GRAND TOTALS               431.30         434.75

>If the maximum score is 6.0, how did Todd and Tara score over 120.0?

>Why did Kwan and Weiss score less than any other duo?

>Did I miss something in the math? Or the skating?

>Comments? I'm willing to be persuaded that this was "fair."

>Peg

 
 
 

Explain the new Pro-Am math to me, please

Post by Robinski » Mon, 20 Apr 1998 04:00:00

Definitely there was something missed in the skating.  For example, Ilia Kulik
was on Team Tara but we didn't see him skate.  I also wondered about the
"group" scoring;  I know Nancy K has done that in the past to avoid having her
individual scores shown, but they did it in funny places.  

<sarcasm on>  I was surprised about the results <sarcasm off>;  I certainly
would have liked to have seen more of the competition and more of the scoring.
.

Robin

 
 
 

Explain the new Pro-Am math to me, please

Post by Revjoel » Mon, 20 Apr 1998 04:00:00

Quote:
>Definitely there was something missed in the skating.  For example, Ilia Kulik

was on Team Tara but we didn't see him skate.

Not going to defend the scoring--but it was my understanding that Ilia and
Scott Davis both skated exhibitions.  Why, I have no idea.

Joelle
"God must have a sense of humor." Kitty Carruthers.

 
 
 

Explain the new Pro-Am math to me, please

Post by Joan La Rochell » Mon, 20 Apr 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> Definitely there was something missed in the skating.  For example, Ilia Kulik
> was on Team Tara but we didn't see him skate.

Ilia wasn't on either team.  He skated a new, wonderful exhibition that
ABC chose not to show.

Quote:
>  I also wondered about the
> "group" scoring;  I know Nancy K has done that in the past to avoid having her
> individual scores shown, but they did it in funny places.

> <sarcasm on>  I was surprised about the results <sarcasm off>;  I certainly
> would have liked to have seen more of the competition and more of the scoring.

The scoring was closed - no one except the judges knew for sure.
Quote:
> .

> Robin

 
 
 

Explain the new Pro-Am math to me, please

Post by Kaij » Mon, 20 Apr 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> >Definitely there was something missed in the skating.  For example, Ilia Kulik
> was on Team Tara but we didn't see him skate.

> Not going to defend the scoring--but it was my understanding that Ilia and
> Scott Davis both skated exhibitions.  Why, I have no idea.

Maybe it was Todd's skating that took Team 2 over the top.

Seeing Ilia's and Scott's programs would have been nice, however.

Kaiju

 
 
 

Explain the new Pro-Am math to me, please

Post by PegLewi » Mon, 20 Apr 1998 04:00:00

Chuck:
Ummm.... in the figures you listed above, you made an arithmetical error
when
adding together Meno/Sand & Timothy Goebel's scores.

200.60 + 115.80 = 316.40, not 314.00

Quote:
>T1 Kwan+Weiss       *****   +114.05     +120.75 ******* T2 Todd+Tara
>                                          -----------     -----------
>GRAND TOTALS               431.30         434.75
>If the maximum score is 6.0, how did Todd and Tara score over 120.0?

Therefore, Todd and Tara's score would have been (434.75 ) - (316.40), not
(434.75) - (314.00).

Which means that Todd and Tara's combined score was 118.35, not 120.75.

Quote:
>Why did Kwan and Weiss score less than any other duo?

That, I don't know.  Maybe there was something in Weiss's skating that I
missed? (I really doubt the error was on Michelle's side, she looked good.)

Quote:
>Did I miss something in the math?

In the math, I'm afraid.

Hope this helps.
~~~~~~~~
Peg responds:

Yes, it does help. I really tried to accurately copy down the numbers ABC
showed on the screen for us, but they didn't exactly go out of their way to be
helpful for those of us who wanted to follow the scoring. Thank you.

This is also why I asked for an explanation. God knows I'm not perfect. <g>0
BTW, which items did I get wrong from the ABC graphics (because I thought I
copied what they gave us correctly)?

Peg

 
 
 

Explain the new Pro-Am math to me, please

Post by Kaij » Mon, 20 Apr 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> Kaiju writes:

> <<Maybe it was Todd's skating that took Team 2 over the top.

>      Although I think that Michelle's program should have been scored higher
> than Tara's, let's set that aside for the moment, and even "assume" that they
> received equal scores.  So, setting that aside, the one absolute undisputable
> fact of the "competition" (euphamism) was that Todd skated the SHIRT off
> Michael.  That's one of the best performances I've seen Todd skate in awhile -
> and it definitely was technically superior to Micheal's.  And artistically,
> too.  So, even though I think Michelle should have outscored Tara, Todd's
> perfomance was a winner.

No argument from me, except I'd say Todd skated the shirt off ALL of the male
skaters and most of the female skaters, as well.  That was an outstanding
skate.  It should also shut up Roz about Todd's ability to make it in the
pros...when he chooses to join them.

Quote:
>     BTW, did anyone else notice the total lack of surprise and "thrill" on the
> faces of Team 2 when they announced they had won??

I didn't notice.  They flashed by them so fast, by the time I looked up, the
show was over!  

Kaiju

 
 
 

Explain the new Pro-Am math to me, please

Post by Tee » Mon, 20 Apr 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> Kaiju writes:

> <<Maybe it was Todd's skating that took Team 2 over the top.

>      Although I think that Michelle's program should have been scored higher
> than Tara's, let's set that aside for the moment, and even "assume" that they
> received equal scores.  So, setting that aside, the one absolute undisputable
> fact of the "competition" (euphamism) was that Todd skated the SHIRT off
> Michael.  That's one of the best performances I've seen Todd skate in awhile -
> and it definitely was technically superior to Micheal's.  And artistically,
> too.  So, even though I think Michelle should have outscored Tara, Todd's
> perfomance was a winner.
>     BTW, did anyone else notice the total lack of surprise and "thrill" on the
> faces of Team 2 when they announced they had won??

Hee hee. I think those giant hershey bars got in the way.
They were like....."yeah!".
Did anyone catch the shot of Nicole Bobek picking
away at her fingernails right after Michelle finished?
Yeesh, talk about being caught at a bad moment.

--
X-no-archive: yes

 
 
 

Explain the new Pro-Am math to me, please

Post by Chuck » Mon, 20 Apr 1998 04:00:00

<snip>

Quote:
>    BTW, did anyone else notice the total lack of surprise and "thrill" on the
>faces of Team 2 when they announced they had won??

You expect people who have stood on podiums at Olympics, Worlds, and US
Nationals to get genuinely e***d over winning the Hershey's
exhibition-oops-I-mean-competition?

I'm sure it's fun for them to skate at it, but not it's like it carries any
great emotional significance.
--
Chuckg

 
 
 

Explain the new Pro-Am math to me, please

Post by Sk8Mave » Mon, 20 Apr 1998 04:00:00

Quote:
> >    BTW, did anyone else notice the total lack of surprise and
> >"thrill" on the faces of Team 2 when they announced they had won??

> You expect people who have stood on podiums at Olympics, Worlds, and US
> Nationals to get genuinely e***d over winning the Hershey's
> exhibition-oops-I-mean-competition?

The USFSA pro-ams have gone a *long* way downhill from the original
concept. They started out as individual head-to-head contests where the
"bragging rights" were more or less important -- but the problem was
that the pro (and ex-pro) men usually beat the pants off the eligible
men, while the pro and eligible ladies tended to trade off results.
There was a transition period of about 6 months to a year where it
seemed to be impossible to get any pros except Caryn Kadavy to
participate, and then a team format -- with team names based on the
leading Big Sports Teams in the city where the competition was held --
was introduced. About a year ago they really started to go to pot with a
silly "battle of the sexes" format (repeated six months later), and this
scrambled-egg mess of a "competition" was several notches below *that*.

I think the original concept has been ***erated to the point of
absolute pointlessness.

Incidentally, if MargR is right and ABC had the "scores" all screwed up,
then Team 2 had the lead from the get-go and their "win" was no
surprise. Besides, they were probably clued in by the handing out of the
giant chocolate bars *before* the results were publicly announced. :-)

Maven

 
 
 

Explain the new Pro-Am math to me, please

Post by lm51.. » Mon, 20 Apr 1998 04:00:00



Quote:

> Day two, Hershey's pro-am:

> Team 1, Rudy + Ina/Dungjen 114.40    114.40 T2, Nancy+Puns/Swallow
>                                           ----------    ----------
>                                           201.45      200.60
> T1 Petrenko+Bobek            +115.80    +115.80 T2 Meno/Sand+Tim G.
>                                          ------------    --------------
>                                           317.25      314.00
> T1 Kwan+Weiss       *****   +114.05     +120.75 ******* T2 Todd+Tara
>                                           -----------     -----------
> GRAND TOTALS               431.30         434.75

> If the maximum score is 6.0, how did Todd and Tara score over 120.0?

> Why did Kwan and Weiss score less than any other duo?

> Did I miss something in the math? Or the skating?

> Comments? I'm willing to be persuaded that this was "fair."

> Peg

I also puzzled by the score. Although Todd delivered a stunning
performence, the score should have come closer. Michelle clearly skated
better this time. She had 3lutz 2toe combo, 2axel, 3 toe, 3salchow;
while Tara had 3toe, 3lutz(turned to 2lutz), 3toe (I did not remember
she did 2axel). Artistically, Tara had noticable improvement in
this program(although I don't think I can call it a "stellar"
performance as the AP reporter did in his article), but Michelle
still had lead in this area. In my opinion, Michale did pretty well
that night, that is why I can't see any reason why the difference
between two teams' score  is near 5 points. They should not deduct
any point for Michale's back flip, should they?

Anyway, this is not a serious event, so even I do not understand
the score, I do not care that much. The best thing is I really
enjoy the show!

Perry

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

 
 
 

Explain the new Pro-Am math to me, please

Post by Jessica Kala » Mon, 20 Apr 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> Incidentally, if MargR is right and ABC had the "scores" all screwed up,
> then Team 2 had the lead from the get-go and their "win" was no
> surprise. Besides, they were probably clued in by the handing out of the
> giant chocolate bars *before* the results were publicly announced. :-)

> Maven

  Actually I was under the impression that every participant received those
candy bars including Ilia and Scott even tho we didn't get to see that on tv.
Quite a few of them gave the bars away to the audience during bows.

Jess