LOFTER-网易轻博

Source: 意大利原文 https://www.oasport.it/2019/03/pattinaggio-artistico-mondiali-2019-massimiliano-ambesi-urge-una-riflessione-sulle-componenti-del-programma/

英文参考：综合此篇 http://iordikachu.tumblr.com/post/183658742664/ambesi-dragging-someone-again-on-the-mens-fs 和Google Translate（有懂意大利文的请不吝指正）

欧体意大利解说、专业花滑评论员M叔关于2019世锦赛男单的访谈，有一部分已经有党员翻译过了，我顺着汤不热翻到意大利原文，发现在此之后还有一些值得一提的东西（当然也可能是我记错，就当给自己存个档），借鉴了汤不热上的英文翻译和Google Translate搞出一个大致的渣翻，如果能抛砖引玉找到懂意大利文的小伙伴指正一下就好了。

以下是党员翻译过的部分（Cr. 微博@YuzuruFanyu）

以下是一些后续问题和M叔的回答：

       记者：说到打分，有一件特别的事使我笑了。有位裁判给羽生和VC只打出了节目内容分0.25分的分差。她给奥运冠军的四周跳只打了GOE+1，幸好这只是她个人的行为，其他裁判都给了+3到+5的分数……

       M叔：我的想法是，裁判是脑子烧了（译注：这里不确定该不该这么翻，请不要以此翻译为准，好在不影响理解）才会这样给节目要素打分，因为客观条件是这两位选手根本不可能只有0.25分的差距。不仅如此，VC 不可能排在Matteo Rizzo，Mikhail Kolyada，ShomaUno和其他至少15位选手的前面。节目内容分不能以节目中跳成的四周跳数量为风向标。我觉得这样跳出来的4lo（意指裁判只给了羽生4lo +1的GOE），这样的进入和高度，不能只给+1的GOE。很明显这个裁判跟其他人看到的不是同一个跳跃。

       不过注意，我们不能只关注一位运动员，这个问题是总体性的，不是关乎于这一队裁判的执裁而是关乎于整个制度。节目内容分和技术分之间不应存在这样的鸿沟，我们必须找到切实的解决方式。有人建议降低技术动作的分值，我个人觉得这不对也不合适。节目内容分应该被提升到和技术分同等的高分值。如果是这样，这次的排名会小有变化吗？我觉得会的。但是选手们当然会得到鼓励，去尝试改进他们现在疏于关注的细节问题。（中略）我依然认同改革的重要性，认为选手应该尽可能地在节目里多跳四周跳。但是裁判应该合理评判技术动作与节目的契合程度。如果跳跃前长时间待机，如果节目空洞无物，如果没有衔接步伐串，如果没有音乐诠释，裁判不该打8分或9分。

       ……

       我不相信这个打分制度设立的初衷是为了奖励只有单一方面突出的选手——节目里只有四周跳的那些人。我们很需要反思。

译注：

       柚子和小周的小分表见下。

       在ISU官网查到这位裁判是J2：Ms. Ebru ANILDI。可惜的是在ISU官网上，2019花滑世锦赛所有比赛项目的裁判名单都没有显示国籍。

       链接在此：http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1819/wc2019/

羽生结弦2019WC FS小分表

Vincent Zhou 2019WC FS小分表

ISU官网2019WC男单自由滑裁判名单截图

Speaking of evaluations, one particular case made me smile. Ajudge has only differentiated the skating skills between Hanyu and Zhou by 25cents. He also assigned only +1 to the quadruple rittberger of the Olympic Champion, fortunately in solitude since the others gave from +3 to + 5 ...

"As far as I amconcerned, an evaluation of this type on the components of the program is dueto immediate radiation because it is not objectively possible that there areonly twenty five cents difference between the two skaters in question. Butnot only. It is not possible that Zhou is put in front of athletes like Matteo Rizzo, Kolyada, Uno Shoma and at least fifteen others. We cannot accept that the components of the program move in symbiosis with the number ofquadruples completed. In my opinion the quadruple rittberger executed in that way, with that type of preparation and with the reached height, cannot receive +1. Evidently that judge witnessed something different than all the others. But be careful, we cannot dwell on the single, the problem is overall and does not concern the evaluation of the judges in this tender, it concerns the system. There can be no such discrepancy between technical score and program components, a solution must be found. Someone proposes to decrease the value of the elements, personally I find it wrong and out of place. The program components must be equalized to the technical score; then will it change little in the rankings? I agree with this. But surely the skaters would be pushed to try to improve those details that today are left in the background... I maintain that it is importantto evolve and that it is right to include as many quadruples as possible in a program. But then you judge you have to evaluate how that element is inserted in the program: if it is preceded by a very long run-up, if the program is empty, if there are no transition passages, if there is no interpretation then they cannot arrive evaluations on 8 or 9".

...

I do not believe that this system, when it was conceived, wanted to reward one-dimensional athletes, that is, capable of performing the four rotations without having anything else in the program. Urge a reflection".