Gamble or Risk?
Gamble or Risk?
Originally published March. April. 2015 PS Magazine
“GREENSBORO. -- When has the United States
ever been pleased with ninth place in a sporting event? Or 12th? When has
settling for something less than a medal ever been acceptable? When have
American athletes just been happy to be there?
The
answer is now. Right now, actually, in men's figure skating, where the top two American
skaters over the last year not only realize they are not pulling out all the
stops to try to do their best on the world stage, they also appear completely
content not to be.
Their
names are Jason Brown and Jeremy Abbott. Last year at the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Brown finished ninth and Abbott 12th, the worst performances by U.S. men at the Olympic
Games since 1936. They are beautiful artistic skaters, but neither tried a
quadruple jump in Friday's short program, the four-revolution risk-reward leap
of faith that is essential to even have a chance of winning a medal at a world
championships or Olympics nowadays.” - Christine Brennan, USA TODAY Sports, January 24, 2015
My former coach Evy Scotvold always
told me that one or two risks in a program was fine…but to gamble in a
program…no way. If you’re not landing an element more than 80% of the time it’s
a gamble… a crap shot. Christine Brennan forgets something really important: the
days are over from when the top skaters made the team regardless of their
performance. Today’s IJS confirms that the best skater of the day will win. The
U.S. Championships are still that… a U.S. Championship.
In the free skate, 11 of the 20
skaters attempted to follow Brennan’s logic by attempting a quad. Of those
attempts, there were two deemed under-rotated, four downgraded, and four falls.
Three of the attempts averaged just over two points… about the same as a double
Lutz. While we can agree that it is important to compete for medals at the
world level, I think it’s ultimately the choice of the athlete and coach to
make the decision on whether to attempt it or not. Jeremy Abbott attempted the
quad in the long and fell… it was a calculated risk, not a gamble. He landed a
beautiful quad in the warm-up. He has landed quads in competition. An easier
decision for sure. Jeremy didn’t skate to just make the team…he skated to
defend his title and to honor his late father.
Jason Brown on the other hand is
still perfecting his triple Axel. That is his risk element. He was cited
several times this year as under-rotated on the Axel. It is not yet the money
jump it will become and the quad is still in the development stage. I see no
benefit to try it and fall until the triple Axel is perfect and he can risk the
quad attempt. At Jason’s two Grand Prix competitions this year, he placed 3rd
and 5th. At Skate America, six of the seven skaters he beat
attempted a quad. At the Rostelecom Cup in Russia, seven of the eight skaters
he beat in the free skate also attempted a quad. I cannot find fault for the
lack of of a quad attempt at Nationals. He skated two great programs and put
the burden on his fellow competitors to beat him.
Additionally, landing a quad is
not the key to winning, at least not in the U.S. Case in point is Max Aaron who
landed 2 quads for almost 27 points. They are money in the bank! The difference
is the program component marks and specifically the lack of transitions and
linking steps. The spread was over 12 points between Max’s and Jason’s program
component scores, while Max beat Jason by only 3 points in the technical mark.
Max lost points by executing 5 elements with a negative GOE and one level three
spin. Comparatively, let’s discuss the change foot spin that Jason and Max
executed. Jason did a camel level four and Max a sit a level three. Both had a
positive GOE but Jason earned almost two more points. To illustrate a point,
after Max’s first two elements which were the quads, he beat Jason’s first two
elements performed by 10.45 points. By the end of the programs however, Jason
earned 15.27 points on the judge’s GOE; Max, just 5.51, a 9.76 difference,
nearly wiping out the value of the quads.
The second and third place
winners did attempt quads. Adam Rippon’s quad Lutz attempt was downgraded… if
he had made it to under-rotated the results may have been different; he
possibly could have won. If he chose to do a triple flip in its place, the
results would not have changed. Like Jason’s GOE scores, Adam had only one
element that was negative. His program received over 17 points from the GOE and
while there was only a half of a point separating the two in the program
component marks, the difference was the transitions, something Jason excels at.
Joshua Farris should have been
the new U.S. champion… he won the program components, landed his quad, but made
a critical error of repeating a double toe loop one too many times. Because of
the repeat he received a zero, a loss of most likely eight points. A simple mental
error.
So this is where Christine
Brennan is wrong. This is competition… the good, the bad and the ugly. Ultimately,
a quad performed and landed, along with a strategically designed, well-rounded,
and impeccably executed program will win. I can agree with Christine that none
of our skaters are yet the complete package needed to medal at worlds without
the competition making mistakes. But what is an acceptable level of risk? The
object is to score as many points as possible between the two programs. Until
the ISU decreases the penalty for failure, the risk for most athletes is not
worth it. I believe those that attempted it, and those who did not, made the right
choice. However, to be called out by the press for the decision is not only not fair, it is misleading.
Comments