Does COP reward difficult jumps adequately?

We all know that jumps should have an entry; a rotation; a posture; a landing. Eash one of these 4 parts I mentioned should be judged.

(I'm not getting into the number of rotations to keep the explanation simple.) I've seen many MIFs such as spread eagles into say, an axel, but few if any, that actually flowed from the spread eage into the axel. The skaters tend to give a flow pause out of the spread eagle so as to set up the entry to the axel. Well, for me, that skater could just as well have done a carefully prepared entry into the axel because the spread eagle appeared to me a completely different skating move, i.e., the spread eagle and the axel were not really connected.

As for the correct rotations of the jump, that is not always clear, and we just have to let the Technical Assistant call these underrotated jumps as he sees it. It is a serious problem with the many posts I read on which the TV viewer sees underrotation and the Tech Asst does not call it. This disagreement can cause a lot of cries of 'cheating' or 'ineptness'.

The posture of the skater on entry, air turns, and landing of course vary with the execution of a jump. I think it is pretty clear on the posture of a skater while entering a jump, and his landing of the jump. Flow in both instances is important and should be considered in the GOE scores. However, the posture in the air turns can vary with skaters. I've seen perpendicular to the ice and various degrees of leaning. Landings were made in all cases but is there a rule on air posture in a jump?

The landing of jumps as we have seen can vary with a fall, a fall out, a tight circular move, a hand down, etc., etc. the question is how serious are these in terms of judging a jump?

Boy, did I carry on with this. Does the Cop award jumps adequately? From what I wrote above, I doubt it. An example: A triple lutz has just been executed by skater A and later by skater B; the entry of A, was done in a straightforward long flow manner (telegraph, if you will); the air turns were correct, the posture in the air was verticle; the landing had excellent outflow. Skater B entry was from footwork; the air turns were correct, the posture in the air was leaning away from the verticle, the landing had a tight circular move with little flow.

Should the skaters in the example have different GOEs?

Joe

Vash01 said:

If I understand this correct, the PCS marks are not just for the number of transitions in the program, or for skating the whole program without stopping. They include basic skating skills and Irina has some of the best where the blades/edges are concerned. For example she gets rewarded for holding steady edges while -for example- Sasha does not (but she makes up for it by holding great extensions).I disagree that Irina has no transitions in her programs. Have you seen her programs this season? Her LP has no stops at all. The PCS marks also include the overall quality of the program; they are the equivalent of the presentation marks under the 6.0 system. We will always see some subjectivity in them because FS is a subjective sport. In fact skaters like Jeff Buttle have benefitted greatly under the new system. In the 6.0 system nobody would have given him the high presentation marks after making 4 technical mistakes in an LP.

I want to go back to my original question- whether COP rewards jumps adequately and it probably does not. It has room for improvement, so you cannot blame everything on the PCS scores and accuse the judges of cheating. I think they are going with their personal preference, just like you are going with yours.

Vash

Click to expand...

Sorry i only used Choreopgraphy, interpretation and transitions in my example because those are the areas where i think people are up in arms about the high marks Irina has received. As far as basic skating is concerned i would not bat an eyelid at irina getting marks in the 9s. I explained in a message in the summer that i think Irina is one of the best basic skaters out there, save for sometimes pumping her back a little on back cross overs, she skates with incredible speed and very secure edging, i have no gripes whatsoever about her getting extremely high marks in that regard.

With regards to the transitions and the categories i mention above, i must first say that i have not seen irina's programs from this year yet, however, those categories are not about not stopping they are about actually having in-between content in the program and stroking and cross overs is not a transition or chorepgrahy nor is it good interpretation. There have to be complex intricate uses of edges, arms, body position, lines as well as field moves to really fit into those categories and Irina's programs from last year definiely did not have them - less so the SP but certainly the LP was vastly lacking...in terms of of interpretation and choreography and transitions Sasha (who's skating i'm not a huge fan of) had it all over Irina last year. But in the basic skating Irina gets a big nod over sasha.

I'll wait to see what i think of Irina's programs this season when i finally get to watch them but based on last year (and i'm told there's been no imporvement from last year in terms of these things) i don't think she's doing any of those things for 80% of the program which warrants getting 8s in the PCS.

Ant

BronzeisGolden said:

Great discussion, guys! I have enjoyed reading all of this. I also don't understand why falls are not penalized more. Personally, I find that they severely disrupt the flow of a program. I love Jeffrey Buttle and greatly appreciate his fine line and numerous other qualities. However, he spends so much time picking himself up off the ice or recovering from a stumble that I find myself very underwhelmed by the overall performance. I don't see how the PCS scores aren't more affected by this. Certainly, jumps aren't everything. But, you have to give credit to anyone that can successfully complete a clean program. That should be given more weight. It is a very difficult thing to do, and, overall, is more rewarding. Now, it seems, everyone is too busy trying to play by the numbers (contorting themselves into awkward/ill-performed pretzels, etc.). I wish they would just go with what they do best (and what looks best on them). COP does not encourage this. It rewards technically difficult moves (well, some, not all) over those that are more aesthetically pleasing....thus I feel, we are seeing difficult and admirable moves done in a sub-par fashion on a large scale, or impressive moves performed to adnaseum in the same program. COP has its merits, but these are the main negative points that, IMO, are changing the sport in a bad way. Overall, I honestly don't see that it is that much better than the 6.0 system. ....but that is just my opinion.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on all of this but, even though it pains me to even try to be positive about CoP , maybe its just too soon and the skaters are being sloppy because they're trying to add so many new skills. Take spinning as an example, aesthetics aside, the CoP is rewarding changing edges on spins, using joubert as an example he has never been a great spinner, under 6.0 he got away with having good jumps and pretty average/subpar spins, because of the CoP he added the edge changes and his spins were still fairly poor but clearly he'd worked on them to get them in the program despite them cralwing to a near halt. This season his spins are actively good he's changing edges and not slowing down...of course his jumps have gone, but that's a different story!

Just thinking aloud, maybe Joubert is a good example, he was coasting at or near the top of the elite men on the basis of his jumps, certainly not his spins and lacking good choreography, now he's been forced to spend more time working on other things, his jumps aren't so good...maybe the CoP by the time the next Olympics rolls round will encourage the skaters to "have it all", it may encourage younger skaters to focus more early on things like spins and choreogprahy rather than jumps so that by the time they hit seniors they've not been pounding triples for 4 years already?

Or maybe we've just been spoiled by having a truly unique couple of Olympic cycles recently that included the likes of Kwan, Slutskaya and Yagudin and Pluschenko all of whom for sustained periods of time consistently put in maxed out jump content programs while doing what the judges wanted presentationally (not that i particularly agree with Slutskaya's or Pluschenko's presnetation or PCS marks!) and actually skating talent that great is pretty rare and we might have to wait 10 or more years before we see anyone who has "the complete" package again.

Ant

Why is the case for Irina so important in this general discussion of judging jumps? She has cheated jumps as much as other skaters. She has also landed perfectly her jumps as much as others.

I believe the subject is asking if a difficult jump (e.g. 3A) is being awarded adequately as opposed to a less difficult jump (e.g. 3lutz)? It shouldn't be if the Tech Asst is doing his job properly and the judges are grading as they see it, in accordance with the rules of the GOEs.

If we are asking if a 3lutz should be rewarded as much as a 3A, I can not answer that clearly. Some skaters are very good at forward outside takeoffs while almost all are good at back outside takeoffs.

Joe

CoP and combos ... how missing the second jump can cost a lot ...

And my list goes on ...
6) A combo is evaluated by a single grade ... which can have peculiar consequences!
If a skater misses the second jump after nailing the first, he/she might end up with less points than by performing the first jump on its own! For instance, Mikki Ando fell on the landing of the second jump on her 3Z-3L in the LP at the Grand Prix final - her loop jump was fairly downgraded to a double, so her combo had a 6.1 + 1.4 = 7.5 base value. Leaving the -1 penalty aside for the fall, she got a -3 deduction, so received 4.5 pts ... whereas by performing her lutz alone, which was good with height, done on the right edge and fully rotated, she would have had 6 pts and some tenths.

I have never seen any other sport come up with so a clumsy point system!

I guess I don't mind the idea that the big elements also carry big risks. Like in poll vaulting, if you pass at 18 feet and then fail by an inch at 19 feet, you can't complain, well, I should get credit for 18 feet because I just jumped 18'11". No guts, no glory.

MM

Mathman said:

I guess I don't mind the idea that the big elements also carry big risks. Like in poll vaulting, if you pass at 18 feet and then fail by an inch at 19 feet, you can't complain, well, I should get credit for 18 feet because I just jumped 18'11". No guts, no glory.

MM

Click to expand...

And seeing blood in the Arena just adds to the fun of sports.

Joe