**0**

While that may be true, doing a 3T/2T/2T uses up the three jump combination that a skater is allowed to do, further more, if this is ladies were hypothesizing about then doing a triple axel instead of the above combo leaves the skater another 6 jumping passes all of which can be the other five easier triple jumps with one repeated. She would also still have 2 two-jump and one three-jump combinations as posibilities. Compare that to the lady having done the 3T/2T/2T who would have to still do an axel type jump (presumably double in this case) and is then left with only 5 potential jumping passes of triple jumps and 2 two-jump combinations.Originally Posted byVash01

I think the advatage conferred on a lady by having a 3A in her program generally benefit the programs total base value in terms of jumps such that upping the actual point value of a 3A is to overvalue one element. A 3A is currently worth almost twice the value of 3T, is doing a 3A really worth twice a 3T? If you were to add points to the value of one element then do yuo not give an unfair advantage to someone who pulls off the one high risk element but only squeaks out the rest of her triples compared to someone who authoritatively lands all five of her triples but doesn't even attempt the 3A?

I don't see how a fall on a quad is any more disatrous than a fall on a triple, in fact i'd say a fall on a triple is more disastrous than a fall on a quad. If a skter falls then the judges will give it a -3 GOE across the board plus a 1 point deduction for a fall. So if you fall on a 3T you score 0 for the element, for a fall on a 3S you get 0.5 etc all the way to 3.5 for a fall on a 3A. If, however you fall on a 4T, you get 5 points...in other words you get more points for falling on a quad toeloop than if you had landed a clean adequate 3T or 3S and exactly the same points as you would have got for for a clean and adequate 3Loop or for a mildly flutzed 3Lutz...that to me is insane whay should a totally flawed qudruple toeloop (by virtue of a fall) give you the same points as a mildly flawed triple lutz?Originally Posted byVash01

But again a lady can only perform a 3/2/2 once so if she is using it to make up the advantage fo another skater having a 3/3 it doesn't relly pay off if both skaters max out the total jump combinations. If a skater has two reliable 3/3s and puts them both in the program together with a 3/2/2 (since point wise there's no point in risking a 3/3/2 when there are not extra points given for it, she might as well do two 3/3/ and a 3/2/2) then she's matched the 3/2/2 of the other skater plus upped the ante in the two other combinations. As with the 3A the points advantage conferred is about oening up other jump possibilities which adds to the over all base value.Originally Posted byVash01

I've not seen the GP but looking at the protocols and hearing people talking about jumps being downgraded sys to me that everyone who could attempt them has been attempting them . I agree that the downgrading of triples to doubles is a double penalty which i seriously disagree with but i'm not sure its discouraging skaters from attempting them. I'd like to see them scrap the downgrading rule or make it more obvious e.g. downgrading a jump only if it is more than a half a turn short on the rotation. I also think sequences and combinations should be given multipliers to show that the jumps done together are mopre difficutl and should therefore be rewarded more then if the jumps are done in isolation. Off the top of my head i'd give jump sequences a multiplier of 0.1 and combinations a multiplier of 0.2. This would therefore encourage skaters to put their most difficult jumps in combination to get extra credit for them. Also if the skater doesn't even attempt the second jump then no combo or seuqence bonus can be given and zayak violations should apply if relevant.Originally Posted byVash01

I still think the SP and LP aren't weighted properly and think its ridiculous that the free program is no longer "free". I've already written above how ridiculous the fall deductions are when it gives a falied quad the same points a amildly flawed triple lutz. I think there should be mandatory deductions in teh SP like there always were and in a way that hurts the skaters like the SP used to. How about taking the 0.X mandatory deductions from the 6.0 system and turning them into X point decudtion under COP. So if you fall on a jump and therefore didn't complete that required element you get a 4 point deduction. If you totally miss out an element 5 point deduction. Turns between the jumps on your combination 2 or 3 point deduction.Originally Posted byVash01

Well you see this is where i'm starting to alugh a little bit at all of us as fans of skating. Under 6.0 all i would hear is people complaining that the sport is becoming all about the jumps, the jumps are all that matters, what about spins, choreo, artistry. Why are people getting credit and wining with flawed big jump attempts (eg quads) over people with great basic skating and choreo and decent triples. Now that we have a system that seemingly rewards the in between and it ofsets the advantage of the big jumps people are complaining.Originally Posted byVash01

I think the grass is always greener and there are always going to be people who think one think and other that think the exact opposite.

Another factor that is worth considering is that i think we are beginning to see the physical limits of what people can do. I don't think there will ever be a skater, no matter how much time, that will produce a program with a full set of quads...i just don't think that is humanly possible to train that without crippling yourself. That being the case it might just so happen that we're seeing the maximum jumps that poeple can do and not bothering to do any more at the same time that new system has come in and we don't know which one is to blame?

That was fun - thank for the debate!

Ant

## Bookmarks