Kiss & Cry Reloaded Ep 7 - Transcription and translation
It took almost a month because of my job and Christmas, but I finally managed to finish this. It’s a partial transcription (the whole podcast was over two hours, and it talked about Ladies’ single, Ice Dance and Pair skating too) and its translation.
Feel free to share it but please add due credit: I’m happy to do this for the figure skating community, but it still took several days of hard job ^^.
Here’s the original https://www.spreaker.com/user/talk-sport/kiss-cry-reloaded-puntata-7
Time tags are added when needed.
Please message me if you spot any kind of mistake! I’ll be happy to edit it!
And many many thanks to Massimiliano Ambesi, Angelo Dolfini and Francesco Paone for their insights and company!
Kiss & Cry Reloaded – Episode 7.
Transcription and translation by Costanza Bonelli
[Italic Text in square brackets: my notes]
Starts at roughly minute 10:30
P: ... Now, let’s get more in depth on several topics. Ok, Massimiliano, you mentioned the judgement in the Junior Ladies competition, you also mentioned Japan: let’s put it all together, because in the last three or four days there were a lot of talks and discussions about what happened in the men’s single competition, because, okay, Chen won, Hanyu got second, but looking at the scores, many people say “No, it can’t be like this.” I’ll let you talk.
A: I’ll start, but Angelo and I will go back and forth with each other, because, I mean, the topic is sensitive. Let’s put down the basis: Nathan Chen’s victory is legitimate, he got it on the field and this is not up to debate.
D: With full merit, absolutely.
A: With full merit He completed two clean skates (D: Yeah), without any major flaw, and thus this victory, considering Hanyu committed some mistakes, is right. Hanyu lost the competition when he didn’t complete the combination jump planned in the short program (D: Yes), this is a fact, because from that moment he is the one chasing after Chen, clearly with a lot in his mind, the will to make the free program so extreme to try an almost impossible come back... And after that, there’s the free skate with all we all witnessed, in my opinion with more positive sides than negative ones, to be honest.
A: The problem is that if you go and analyse the different elements, you’ll realize that in the GOE attribution, the parameters to get +5, +4, +3 etc are not followed. I believe, and I’m utterly convinced of this, that this system cannot stand as it is, and not because the judges are incompetent or deceitful, I don’t think that, otherwise I wouldn’t be here to talk about skating, I’d be doing something else, and I’d spend my Wednesday evening with my dogs and family, but because the system is not applicable as it is.
Francesco, you are a direct witness because you’ve watched some competitions with me. Every year, I probably see 10,000 different skates, a lot of parents send me their children’s programs from when they’re 10 years old until 18 to know what I think about them, in Italy it happens a bit less, but I receive a lot of video from other countries, so I see a lot of different things. This to say that I’m used to seeing programs, to studying them and to giving scores. But in real time, when you have to judge 12 elements and to keep into consideration the PCS, you cannot objectively keep into consideration all the bullets and the detractions that you have to give to any jump with its GOE. It’s not humanly possible.
I dare the Italian judges to do this (there are some that are real “know-it-alls”), face to face, when they want, I’m here, just call me and I’ll be there. It isn’t possible to judge a skate correctly keeping that system in mind. Then, we can say that a jump is very nice: do we want to give it a +5? Then let’s do this, but the rules say a different thing. The judge is not able to apply said rules to 12 elements, one after the other. Someone will say, “OK, but after the program there’s some time to review it”. The time is not so much, though.
D: It’s a very short time.
A: Yeah, comparatively, very short time.
D: And there are the PCS to score too.
A: Exactly. And what else is there to consider? The fact that, when there’s a review, the call on the element may change.
A: And consequently, you have to, you know Use the rules, which call for a compulsory deduction on that element, based on the kind of call arrived.
D: Maybe the jump is under-rotated, or the edge is wrong.
A: Wrong edge, or dubious edge, there are a lot of cases. The consequence is that, with this system, it’s not possible to judge correctly a competition. This doesn’t mean that Nathan Chen stole something, because he deserved to win, but there are some Nathan Chen’s jumps that are judged incorrectly: the Italian Judge that gives +5 on Nathan Chen’s 3A has to explain the reason behind that +5.
For example. Or, the judges who award the 4S from Nathan Chen’s free skate with the same GOE as Hanyu Yuzuru’s one, and I encourage you to watch them both with attention starting with the take-off in both jumps, even if Hanyu simplified his free skate a lot, are - I don’t want to say incompetent - but they weren’t able to judge the element, because in that short time it’s not possible to take into consideration every single bullet that is required. What they do, then, is getting a general idea and give +5, +4, +3, but this is not what the system wants the judges to do. I’ve said these things several times about the various 3A made by Hanyu in the competitions that preceded this final. So, the judges who said [?] +4. But when you give a +4, it means that you didn’t see two of the three available requirements to raise to +5.
What didn’t you see in Hanyu’s 3A? Doesn’t it match the music? It’s a joke, because he’s so insane about it that if it didn’t match the music, he’d rather fall on the ground, angry because he didn’t execute it as he wanted, so that jump does match the music: no.1. Isn’t the take-off preceded by an unexpected or difficult entry? Because if it isn’t so we can go home now. I’m talking about the short program. Isn’t the position in flight correct, perfect? It may have happened once that he was slightly off centre, but not enough to justify a deduction in the GOE. It’s a +5 for sure, and when you give a +4 instead, you have to explain why you didn’t see two of those three bullets. But I don’t want to think that the judge didn’t see them, I think that the judge didn’t even get to consider the bullets, because in their head it’s impossible to do that in that moment, so they say +4. But this is not what the rules say. And as we’re seeing a lot of cases like this...
D: Yeah, and I’d add, in this specific case, they judge, they see that something is missing, because they say “It’s slightly off centre”, from +5 I’ll go to +4, but it shouldn’t be like that, they should remember that the bullets are six and the skater might have fulfilled five of them, and as you correctly explained, it becomes very complicated to do all this.
A: Why does it become complicated? Because I feel it myself without the pressure of being in a technical panel...
A: ... And I see how it works. +
D: It’s very complicated.
A: I mean, either we find a way to simplify the score attribution, or this cannot go on. Because the GOE assigned during the competition doesn’t match what the athlete did. This said, Nathan Chen did an exceptional performance from the athletic point of view, okay? But the fact that he completed all his jumps doesn’t mean that all his elements deserve the maximum GOE available, and that there are only positive aspects without any negative ones, this is what I mean. So, if we cannot evaluate the quality of the element for what it is, it becomes difficult to assist to a competition with a correct judgement, and thus a competition that mirrors the real values on the field. Hanyu did lose the competition for other reasons, and we said that everything starts from that failed jump, the missed combination jumps in the short program.
Because everything starts there. But, if you go and see the panel of the elements in the short program, you’ll see that elements that Hanyu executed perfectly, and I mean the triple Axel and quadruple Salchow, didn’t get the maximum GOE possible. And this needs to be explained too: the judge who was there has to explain “why +3?” Or “why +4?”, tell me what’s missing. And this is something that applies to Hanyu Yuzuru, or to Nathan Chen, or to a thousand other athletes. I want to stress and highlight that this system, as it’s thought out, is not good to judge the competitions of this speciality. And I mean Figure Skating. On the Ice Dance, I don’t even want to start the discussion, I’m not really interested in it and it’s based on a completely different approach, but it’s not possible to judge instantly 12 elements and to follow, thoroughly, as it should be, the current rules.
D: And it is complicated, really complicated.
A: Exactly. And I stop here, it’s your turn. It was better in the past, with the +3, because judging the elements was simpler, and then, even then you could get confused, and it was again “very good” = +3, “good” = +2, “good but with something off” = +1, “so and so” = 0 and so on, because the same exact thing happened to Plushenko too.
D: With more nuances, if you want.
A: Exactly, it was more believable, in the past, and now it’s your turn.
D: Yeah, I mean, beside the objective difficulty in correctly evaluating and judging the elements with this score system, that is quite beautiful and thought out, but very complex, and so it’s difficult to judge in such a short time, etc, I’d like to add another concept, in my opinion, that must be explained, and I mean: a lot of judges, especially judges who used to use the old system, a bit less with the newer ones, have always been used to comparing the skaters in front of them (and it still happens when you look at a skating competition), with the aim of saying... What’s your first goal?
The goal is to make a correct classification of the competition they’re evaluating in that moment, and it’s also understandable and right that it’s one of the goals. But, for how this system is thought out and built, it constitutes a more or less absolute judgement system, where competitions are comparable with each other, it’s possible to have and consider a “World record”, and it’s possible to have, let’s say, absolute scores, so they should be able to judge an athlete independently from their competitor, focusing only on what they see on the ice in that moment. Once, with the old system, it wasn’t like this, the comparison was explicit, so they only had to choose, as a judge, who to put first and who to put behind. It was simpler, if you want, but it was less precise, and more arbitrary. In this moment, in the moment when they have to go and judge the single elements, it’s simple to say “Ok, look, he executed it impeccably, it’s the most beautiful triple Axel I've ever seen.” Hanyu made it single in the free skate, for example… +4, +5. I understand this point of view, but then, reading the rules, it’s possible to say, “But... Maybe the entry is not that difficult”, it could still be a +5, we said so earlier, but let’s see, is the landing smooth enough? Are there /have there been smoother landings? Then they analyse it, but this is all in the space of a few seconds and it’s so difficult to do, it is then easier to go on the emotional wave of what one sees: Nathan Chen’s performance was astonishing because he was impeccable on everything, the flaws were really just minor, maybe some landings were not very smooth, but that’s all, and we’re talking about extremely difficult jumps, it’s obvious that something like that brings people to give very high marks, and it is also partially correct, obviously. Then, with a colder mind, maybe alone, you see that program, and you’re not evaluating it in the context of a Grand Prix Final, with the huge tension that was there, and you can make different analyses. In that moment, with that tension, with what they were competing for, it’s easy to evaluate a performance like that in an extremely positive way, and we could ask if it’s correct or not, it might not be that wrong, it’s not easy to weigh everything.
We can discuss about one element, we’re here to do that, we also like to try to understand what an athlete or the other is doing. For us, Hanyu presented excellent elements, and there were a lot of positive notes that he brings home from this final, the quadruple Lutz above everything else, we can say that, but quadruple Loop was great too, but the GOE accounts for a lot in this moment, and if you analyse the required bullets with attention, and you see that in any case the difficult entry is only one of those, but you have 6 of them total. Sometimes a difficult entry makes so that the skater misses everything else and gets less points, and this lets you understand how the judges judge a certain type of skating, and then we would need to see different scores on the PCS, especially on transitions, but even at a strategic level, if you analyse the new rules with attention, and the new bullets, you can see that a jump done with a good speed, very wide and with a good position in air can take a +4 if you get it on the music beat, and maybe even a +5.
A: And then, the analysis of the men’s competition is very complex because everyone will ask why Hanyu ends up creating a program with those characteristics. Because the difficulty of that program is absurd, out of the normal range. Because it’s for all these reasons, for the lack of compression of the GOE given to a series of elements, that, for the skaters that can afford to do that, the idea becomes raising the base value as much as possible. And so, if you sum the elements that Hanyu had planned for the free skate up and compare them with Nathan Chen’s, you can see that Hanyu’s base value would have been higher, in a “clean program vs clean program” scenario. Then, Chen would have gained something in case of maximum GOE he could get, because he has a margin of 0.20 point on the base value of the spins, and that means 0.10 on the GOE, with a perfect program, and then he has a quadruple Flip instead of a quadruple Loop, those have half a point of difference, and it’s another 0.25 potential GOE.
Fact is that, putting all these elements together, Hanyu’s perfect program vs Nathan Chen’s perfect program would have given Hanyu 0.8 points. This just to silence some things that you can read around and that are wrong on this part. Hanyu knew this, because he calculates every part of his program, he had to catch up, and he decided to go all in, but what remains, beyond what some people might say (and I can’t understand why these people say falsehoods), is that Hanyu Yuzuru, in the practice programs and during the practice sessions, has almost always completed the quads he presented, on the short program run-through he make a mistake on the combination, as he did during the competition too, but after a couple of minutes he tried it again and executed it perfectly. He had wonderful completion percentages on every quad. Quadruple Lutz included, which he didn’t practice as much, but when he did, he completed it, as we can see on the free program day: he got it perfectly in the run-through, caught by the camera too, and it was one of the most beautiful quadruple Lutz ever seen, and then he repeats it, almost of the same level, even during the competition.
He had the amazing ability to raise the bar in the most important moment, he failed on the athletic point of view, there’s not much to say, because after two and half minutes he was objectively in difficulty, even though, and this needs to be said, he had simplified his program compared to his normal one, you can see some more crossovers, a bit more skating on two feet, but it’s clear that as he had to go all in with a different program than in the other competitions, he had to risk some more. This said, in practice probably, not here, but in Toronto, he proposes something similar, because his objective is bringing 5 quadruples of four different kinds as per rules with his free program, because he can repeat one, and he still had the satisfaction to complete all those jumps. He will surely need to grow in quality for the rest, and to get the ability to complete every planned elements, so, in this moment to beat an athlete as solid as Nathan Chen, you need perfection, you can’t escape this, but I cannot think that Nathan Chen could still be ahead of Hanyu Yuzuru if both of them skate a clean program, because if this was the case, there would be a problem with the rules. I heard someone saying “Well, on the skating skills and transitions, Nathan Chen is at Hanyu’s level now.”
D and P: embarrassed laughter.
A: You have to explain it to me, though.
P: But... Massimiliano, please allow me, there are a lot of questions about a certain topic, I mean... We all appreciate the way you’re trying to calm the situation down, but the impression is, from what we can also read on the Spreaker chat, that the blown up GOE are getting annoying, a lot of people is asking “but why are the mistakes always on the same person, is the system broken?”, and okay, they could be wrong, we could be wrong, but the mistakes always seem to be oriented in one direction. Shouldn’t this be a reason to reflect on: is there one more problem beyond all that we said until now?
A: Guys... What can I say, it’s from the start of this season that I’m trying to bring some situations to light. Not even from the start of the senior Grand Prix season, it’s from the Junior Grand Prix circuit, where we saw a ladies’ skater, Alyssa Liu, getting huge GOEs, out of proportion with the quality of the elements she presented. Sincerely I haven’t ever seen something like this happen. The nationality is the same as the one above mentioned, the origins are the same as him, we all know where the 2022 Olympics will be, these are factual data that cannot be denied. Still, you have to go on the ice and complete the elements. But I don’t want to call politics on this, because I’m not interested in that. Also, Nathan Chen didn’t steal anything, I don’t want to think that he’s stealing anything, but I want to point out that if I analyse element per element what Nathan Chen does between his elements in the short program, I see something different from what Hanyu Yuzuru does. And careful here, Hanyu Yuzuru might be wrong. How? I mean, when for the judges the “best that there is” is what Nathan Chen does, and that it has to be done that way, probably Hanyu Yuzuru takes risks and uses a kind of skating that is too demanding to be able to win. Because, okay, we can say that Nathan Chen, athletically speaking, is in better shape than him, he was more prepared, he has more resistance, etc... But Nathan Chen’s skating is half as tiring as Hanyu’s.
D: Yeah, these are all elements to be considered, it’s also right to underline how even Hanyu had to simplify his programs, going a bit that same route, but it was necessary because
A: In the free skate, Angelo.
D: In the free skate. In the short program, you know what I think about the short program, in a condition of clean skate vs clean skate, I don’t think we can put up any kind of discussion, although the score makes you think because even Nathan Chen got over 110, and it’s true, he had a higher base value in the short program.
A: It’s true. In the short program, yes. I’ll explain: Hanyu presents a quadruple Salchow that has BV 9.7, correct me if I’m wrong, the other presents a quadruple Lutz, that has a higher value: 11.5, e, careful, the advantage is not only on the BV, but also on the GOE, because Nathan Chen can get a 5.75, which is half of 11.75, Yuzuru Hanyu must stop at half of 9.7 which is 4.85. But if the two programs are skated perfectly, Hanyu has objectively something more, and let’s explain what: the triple Axel. Hanyu’s triple Axel is worth +5. And you cannot dispute it, if you dispute it you shouldn’t be sitting in the judging panel. Of any competition, a regional one or the Olympic final, the free program at the Olympics, it’s the same. This is not disputable. And if we consider the program components, in my opinion there’s a huge difference. Beyond the fact that some experts tell me “Eh, but Nathan Chen’s choreography is brilliant.”
P: Massimiliano, regarding what you said before, and I mean that in case of clean program vs clean program Yuzuru Hanyu would beat Nathan Chen in any case, we got a question on the Spreaker chat, in which... And I quote: “In a well-known Facebook group, an expert with experience on the ice, the same that said several times that Hanyu’s triple Axel is preceded by a bracket turn, has said that clean free skate vs clean free skate, Chen would beat Hanyu for 15 points”. I’m asking you to explain this.
A: Well... Angelo, this question seems a bit confused to me, sincerely, because an expert who skated that says that the Hanyu’s famous triple Axel is preceded by a bracket turn... They cannot be an expert who skated.
A: We’re talking about entirely another thing.
D: Exactly. It’s possible to do a bracket turn before the triple Axel, but it’s not what Hanyu does.
A: He did a different thing, that is called backward outside counter, we could define it this way, that has nothing to do with a bracket turn, so we have two possibilities here: either the quoted person committed a typo, but here they say that “they said several times”, or... I don’t know, really... For example, it’s like if someone wrote me... [okay, here Massimiliano made a Tennis reference to Roger Federer which would probably take me ages to understand because I don’t know Tennis enough, I trust what he says. What I got from it, it’s that although a thing might be similar to another in a very superficial way, it’s very easy to see that they’re not the same].
Angelo, please, explain the difference between bracket turn and backward outside counter, I’ll go over the 15-point topic, that I believe might be my fault, because I didn’t really face this topic on Facebook, I was more on Twitter while explaining. No! There weren’t 15 points of difference, because, I repeat, the BV + GOE of Hanyu’s planned free skate was 0.8 points above Nathan Chen’s, go and sum the values up and you’ll see, if we only look at the BV, it was a bit higher still, as you [Angelo] explained earlier, Nathan Chen took something back with the maximum GOE, the Flip and a spin, I believe. Because I think that Hanyu does a Flying combination spin, a classic combination spin with change of foot and another flying
A: that is worth 3 vs the camel change foot camel or change foot camel spin, call it as you wish,
A: Exactly, Nathan Chen’s one, so 0.20 points are there, and then there’s the difference between Flip and Loop, so it’s not possible to have 15 points of difference. Maybe I should have written specific posts on the topic, explaining the score of every single element. Hanyu reasoned like this, most probably: he went and skated a free program that has higher Bv+max GOE because he needed it. I want to be very clear: I would have liked to see a different competition, I would have liked to see Hanyu skate a clean short program, being in front of Chen for one point or so (as Nathan Chen get very high scores), and then go for his classic program, clean.
A. to bring the maximum he could in the free skate, that was my dream for the final, because it would have been a fantastic competition from any point of view. Hanyu made a mistake in the short, mistakes are part of the competitions, and it ended as it did, but... The result is right, what is the base concept though? That 334, right? New World record, that, for what I think, it’s not valid, it’s not confirmed by what has been done on the ice. I mean, we need to detract a lot of points. Even in this case, Nathan Chen would have won the competition.
D: There no doubt about it.
A: I hope I answered the question, you tell me... For Bracket/counter is something not possible, this leaves me speechless.
A: I mean, I think the question is wrong.
D: Yeah, they’re very different things, and I’m going to try to explain this as simply as I can: the peculiarity of the triple Axel that comes from a backward outside counter is the fact that the exiting edge of the counter, and I mean after the turn, after the difficult step that brings you from going backward to going forward, is the same edge where you have to start the Axel. It is possible to execute a bracket before the triple Axel, but it’s not on the foot from where the Axel starts, but on the other foot. When you have a bracket, you usually do it on a forward inner edge that puts you on the same curve, switching to the back outer edge, that is the typical preparation for the Axel, the one we all see, and then you turn and do your Axel, and it would still be a difficult entry, maybe Alex Takahashi, if I remember well, did this, so it’s possible to do that, but it’s a different thing. It’s very difficult, but maybe a little less difficult [than what Hanyu does] in my opinion. Just to explain this part.
P: And... Regarding Hanyu, people are asking if it’s true that he wants to change his technical staff, as he was alone in the Kiss&Cry.
A: No, okay, this must be explained. okay ay, for the Grand Prix final, each skater can be accompanied by only one person of his technical staff, so only one will be accredited. What happens? From Toronto, considering that there weren’t other Hanyu’s rinkmates qualified for the final, only one coach could leave, and the Japanese Federation didn’t put Orser’s name but Briand’s, who is, by the way, a person who is very close to Hanyu, he’s the person he probably spends most time with in Toronto, sort of a mentor. Orser explained this situation saying “I didn’t go, he (Briand) went because Yuzuru wanted to up the difficulty of the program, to up the technical score with more jumps, and Briand is the jump-specialist.
A: You know it well, Angelo, you also did some stage with him, didn’t you?
A: So, Orser not being there is linked to this situation, if Brown had got his qualification, as it would have been normal, Orser would have been with Briand, and it would have been better for everyone, because the coach’s role there is fundamental for the logistics and a lot of other small things. Then, Briand had problems with the flights, and he was stuck in Frankfurt, I think, and he arrived late, and Hanyu found himself alone to face the short program and the previous practice session, he made that mistakes, etc. The problem is that he was alone even for the successive practice session, the one of the day after the short program, and there, in the last fifteen minutes, he started trying quadruple Axels on top of each other, in some cases he was even able to complete the rotation and ended up falling badly, and those are not trivial, you can get hurt. If Brian Orser had been there, or Briand, probably nothing of that would have happened.
A: He wouldn’t have started to practice the quadruple Axel at full speed, I don’t think the strategy for the free skate would have changed, because at that point he needed to go all in, he was 10 points behind, or something like that, and he had to risk everything he could. But probably, had Orser been there, some small situations would have been handled better but they’re not planning a change in the technical staff. Then, it’s clear that when a relationship lasts for a lot of years, there are highs and lows, aren’t there? It’s normal, but, as far as I know now [December 11th, 2019 TN] there’s nothing more than what I explained, we’ll see in the Japanese nationals who will be with Hanyu (who, by the way, hasn’t participated in the Japanese Nationals for quite a long time, for various reasons). Being there, alone, for such an important event, in a country you don’t know, and God knows what more, isn’t easy... No... Please, add something Angelo.
D: Yes, look, for sure we were all surprised to see him alone at the Kiss & Cry, but then it went exactly as you explained it. The problem is that it’s not easy to handle the emotions in these situations, and we all know Hanyu, and it’s true, what we saw at the practice at Palavela wouldn’t have happened if he had had his staff there. It’s a pity that things went that way, but we cannot go back. In the end Briand arrived, and he managed to fix some things, surely the Plan B had already been prepared, I honestly don’t think that the quadruple Axel had been, the one attempted in the practice, but, you know, those things can happen, but I think that Hanyu, in his interviews, has demonstrated times and times again his complete trust in the Toronto coaching staff, and I cannot see, or at least I don’t know of, problems in this sense. Besides, this union between Hanyu and the Toronto Cricket Club has surely bore fruits until now.
A: well, you know, we’re talking about two Olympic titles, besides two World championships titles, four Grand Prix Finals, etc, etc, etc. It is to be said, for those who are worried, that Hanyu lived the situation in a very serene manner, it’s sufficient to see his behaviour during the gala, when, at the end, he was one of the main protagonists, the pranks he did to the other skaters, the gags with the Russian female skaters, and more and more, but Hanyu is also this, and pay attention, because now a whole new game opens up, because what is to be tried, and I know Angelo won’t like this, it’s raising the BV of the short program. Because when that quadruple Lutz becomes a solid jump, everything changes. When the quadruple Loop is done smoothly, as it was, several times in practice, everything changes two times. Translated: we cannot imagine what’s in his mind, and this defeat, the second in a row against Nathan Chen, hurts, and he’ll probably do whatever he can not to have another one at the World Championship, where he is, “home”, as it’s in Canada. That Canada where finally he broke the taboo of the victory in the Grand Prix competition, in this season.
We can expect changes, that that free skate, as it’s planned, might become more stable in time, so that he may be able to skate properly the last part too, and I would like to make you think about the construction of the two programs, and I’d like to do this all together, because I think that from this point of view Nathan Chen is brilliant. Nathan Chen is score-machine. Why? Because it’s true that both Nathan Chen and Hanyu have five quadruple jumps, but Nathan Chen builds his free skate so that the most valuable elements, without the bonus, are all in the first part. Look at which the first three elements presented by Chen are, and look at the value of those elements. He starts with three big jumps, which he faces fresh, there’s not much between these elements because, I mean, doing a quadruple requires a lot of physical effort, mental too, but he completes them all. Sum up Nathan Chen’s first three elements: they are three absolutely difficult elements, and he manages to complete them, as they were nothing.
A: more than fifty points, and from this point of view, the strategy is brilliant. What does Yuzuru do? Yuzuru is very attentive to everything regarding the BV, and he knows that his premise is that he hasn’t the quadruple Flip, so he backloads the programs, so that he can have all his combination jumps in the second part. For sure, though, when you get around the 3-minute mark, or beyond, and you have to jump a combination of quadruple Toeloop, Euler, triple Flip, (that Nathan Chen does too, but after 45 seconds); and a never-seen before in competition sequence of two triple Axels, which is terribly difficult (and yes, he is able to do even four of them in a row, but when he’s rested)
A: And then that quadruple Toeloop, triple Toeloop that sometimes gives him problems. One day, I’d really like to tell you Hanyu’s story starting from the Junior competitions. The combination with the triple has always given him a few problems, even when he was younger. When he was young, very young, a child, 15/14 years old, he didn’t do it with a quadruple
A: I remember when he competed in Italy in the Grand Prix, and we’re talking back of an era, he was constantly working in practice on Salchow/Toeloop, Flip/Toeloop.
A: Because that year at Junior level I think [here the voices were too mixed, I didn’t get it, but I imagine they were talking about the compulsory jumps in Junior].
A: Exactly, so, that was his first Junior season, but in general, that is the element that, more or less, has often given him problems in several occasions. This does not mean that he can’t do a combination quadruple Toeloop/triple Toeloop, because when he does that, I mean, it’s exceptional. It’s clear that presenting it after three minutes is difficult. In Turin he did a quadruple Toeloop/double Toeloop, but he had other intentions. What I want to show you, though, is that if we analyse how the programs are built, we realize how much easier it is to get points with Nathan Chen’s program, isn’t it? Hanyu has a triple Lutz as third element in this moment, and he has a lot of elements in the last two minutes, while Nathan Chen’s distribution of the elements is much more balanced, and allows him to get more breath between a part and the other of the program, between an element and the other. This is where the people making the program for Nathan Chen are very good at it, don’t forget that. It’s clear that Yuzuru risks so much that when he completes everything, he is automatically ahead. So, when we think about the programs, let’s think that these little parts regarding how they’re built, especially in a moment when only the last three elements get the bonus.
D: Exactly, so it changed the game a lot.
A: Someone asked why Nathan Chen doesn’t do two triple Axels, he could gain more points with two triple Axels. The answer is no, he cannot get more points with two triple Axels, before the final he did two triple Axels and had one less quadruple, do you remember it? He gives the second triple Axel up, that would be the last jump in combination, probably with a double Toeloop. Why? And he cannot do that with a triple Toeloop, because that would mean repeating the triple Axel, that he is already doing as fourth element, what is his reasoning? I do, as first element, the quadruple with the triple, right? This quadruple is the Flip, in this case. Then I repeat two quadruple Toeloops, then I go to the last element: I have two options: Option A, very risky, triple Axel/double Toeloop, BV: 9.3? Something like that?
A: And then there’s the bonus
A: Option B: triple Lutz, that I haven’t done yet, and I get to repeat the triple Toeloop. BV, let’s sum it up: 5.9 + 4.2 or 4.3, whatever: it’s more than 10 points already. And there the brilliance of how the program is built is evident, why? Because of Nathan Chen’s qualities, this program with five quadruple jumps completed, is the one that can get as many points as possible.
D: in relation to how difficult the elements are, too.
A: And even regarding the difficulty, because doing a triple Lutz/triple Toeloop for Nathan Chen [both voices at the same time].
A: after two and half minutes, it’s like playing. And that triple/triple becomes, considering the bonus, one of the most valuable elements in his program.
D: Exactly. It’s a paradox.
A: So, this is one of Nathan Chen’s great qualities. In order to defeat Nathan Chen, you have to surpass yourself. Then, if the judgement is fair [he used the English here], a lot of things can be different [both voices at the same time].
D: But it’s right to highlight the strategy. Nathan Chen’s strategy and program-building, they are studied in every detail, fit to their skater, and you have to tip your hat in front of a skater that is able to complete cleanly a program with five quadruple jumps, it’s not easy.
A: Sure. Come on, Francesco, go on with the questions, I think there are a few on this topic.
P: Well, I’d say that on the Men’s competition there’s not much more to say, there’s a lot on the Ladies’ skate, if we want to close.
P: Well, yeah, it was magnificent.
A: Well, on the Men’s skate, I’d like to go back for a few on the program components we talked about earlier. If we talk about the short program, I cannot think for Hanyu to be considered at the same level of Nathan Chen, on skating skills and transitions there’s no competition. Beyond the fact that in Turin he may have skated at the 80% of his potential and not at the 100%, you cannot even compare them, I don’t know what you think about it, Angelo. And those two voices are the not subjective ones, okay?
D: Exactly. Yes, we’ve talked a lot of times about this: there’s less room for subjectivity, if you may.
A: On the other scores, you can call subjectivity in question, someone may like Nathan Chen, someone might say “Mi arriva” [this is something along the line of “he moves me” and “I get him”], which is a term that... When I hear “Mi arriva”, I immediately get angry, okay ay? I don’t say it, other people do. In my opinion, that depends on the genre, on the style, depends on whatever you want... Maybe Hanyu has more room compared to Nathan Chen, so much that with a big mistake, still he’s ahead in all the components of the short program. Then, the difference should probably be higher. In the free skate in Turin, Hanyu simplified a lot.
D: Yes, this is to be underlined.
A: We need to remark this, and simplify a lot means going on the same level of the other, though.
D: And sure, sure, this might be a strategic mistake, even though, I don’t know, it’s difficult to evaluate, because in the end you need to complete a program with 4 or 5 quadruples, otherwise you have no ammo, you’re helpless. Hanyu has a big problem in this moment. The quadruple Lutz was exceptional, but he is usually less reliable on Lutz and Loop than Nathan Chen is (and demonstrated to be) on Flip and Lutz, and the game is there. Then, on whatever is left, you’re taking a risk, you’re raising the difficulty and start putting difficult entries left and right, it really risks to become too tiring, it’s a very subtle balance, but how Hanyu simplified his program on the transitions is evident to everyone, but he raised the technical difficulty really really a lot.
A: But this does not mean that he is behind Nathan Chen on this.
D: No, not behind. But the difference is not as much.
A: Exactly. Then, the transitions are not only about what you do with your feet
P. There was a question getting back to Hanyu
A: uh, let’s go back to Hanyu
P: Let’s go back to Hanyu: they’re asking what is the BV difference between the Free skate in Turin and the one in NHK [this was my question actually].
A: Okay, let’s talk about the Turin’s program he had in his mind, what he wanted to skate and couldn’t because there were some small mistakes. I’d say there were... Almost ten points between BV and GOE, I only take into consideration the maximum you can get by summing the BV and GOE with all +5. So, there were 10 point, 9.70/9.50, something like that. The BV + GOE in Turin was, I think, 142.23, go and check, but from what I remember, it was something like that, while in the Grand Prix competitions it was slightly less than 133, so that’s the different, and it was a fundamental difference to catch up with Nathan Chen, he knew that Nathan Chen would be going from four quadruples to five, and so to balance the situation, he needed to create that program, and its difficulty is completely crazy.
P: I have also seen... this is a consideration more than a question. Having seen them skating live, I have to say that Trusova’s jumps are not only definitely higher than Chen’s, the Toeloop is basically as high as Hanyu’s, but she also has a way better ice coverage, plus she skates on one foot.
A: Oh, they, this is an interesting thing I wanted to day: when we talked about Hanyu’s skating being more tiring, in general, it’s because, yes, there are more segments on one foot only, but there’s also a bigger ice coverage that, in theory, should be considered for the composition score.
A: Someone consider it in the skating skills, but in my opinion
A: I’d say no, rather than yes, but it’s in Composition that you have to judge that score. Chen is not the only one to have limits of that kind, even if he improved, if you look with attention at Zagitova’s, I’d say Medvedeva’s too, it’s not like they have a lot of ice coverage. A ladies’ skater who has an important ice coverage is Miyahara, and Rika Kihira too, I’d say. Kostornaia, Hanyu, and, okay Hanyu is so... Hanyu takes care of this kind of details on his own, he calculates everything, the contrary would be surprising, but this is a very intelligent consideration, I’m happy that we have such a profound audience following us, I mean, it makes us proud.
