# Thread: Fumie's technical score was lower than Sasha's

1. 0
Originally Posted by Mathman

To me, the New Judging System is quite consistent on this. A fall on a fully rotated quad is worth about the same as a well-executed triple. A fall on a triple is worth about the same as a well-executed double.

MM
Didn't have to go that far either. I think a fall on a 3 should never score hire then a single. And the lowest amount for that as well. I mean how can a 2nd rotation be done correctly if you fall on the 3. Arguably it would seem that none of the jump was done correctly if you fall. Your momentum should (you would now MM) be relegated by the first portion of the jump. So if you don't start correctly then you don't "make it." ? More a question in the form of a statement there

2. 0
Sean (for some reason I can't force myself to type "seanibu," LOL), if you want to see the details of how all this is scored under the new judging system, here are the ISU rules. Scroll down to page 29 ff. for the chart of point values.

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/...-0-file,00.pdf

(This file says "complete and up-to-date," but it's not. For the current changes for spins and pairs lifts, especially the criteria for "level four spins," look up Publication #1319 on the ISU site, under ISU judging system.)

For instance, the base vaule for a double Axel is 3.3. Then you can get positive GOE of +1, +2 or +3, or negative GOE of -0.7, -1.4 or -2.1.

So if you fall on a double Axel attempt (this is not an easy jump), you get a mandatory -2.1 GOE and a mandatory -1.00 for the fall, so you end up with a total of 0.2 points for the element. (That assumes that there was not more than a quarter turn cheat on the landing, in which case it would have been downgraded to a single -- and still subject to deductions.)

In contrast a single Axel with 0 GOE is worth 0.8 points.

For me, the more I look at how these points work out, the more impressed I am with how much work the ISU committees put into the point determinations, to take into account all the various combinations of factors.

For instance, a fall on an otherwise correctly done triple toe, triple Salchow, triple loop or triple flip (that is, the entrance was correct, the position and revolutions in the air were correct, but the skater couldn't hold the landing) gives you a lower score than the corresponding double.

But when you get to the more challenging triple Lutz and the much more challenging triple Axel, greater credit is given for completing the revolutions.

A triple Lutz with a fall gives you 2.0 points versus 1.9 for a double, and a triple Axel with a fall gives you 3.5 points versus 3.3 for a double.

In addition, the fall is penalized even further because you can't tack on the second jump of an intended combination, plus if the fall disrupts the flow of the program, that will give you lower program component scores (in skating skills, etc.)

So, to me, yes we can nitpick over fractions of a point (should the skater get 2.0 or 1.9), but the principle of increasing the relative reward on an accelerated scale as the difficulty goes up -- I like that aspect of the CoP.

MM

3. 0
Originally Posted by Mathman
Sean (for some reason I can't force myself to type "seanibu," LOL),
If you knew me it wouldn't be as hard, it fits - Sean is fine

Originally Posted by Mathman
So if you fall on a double Axel attempt (this is not an easy jump),
Yer tel'n me It is freaky coming head on and just the strength of your leg, I always freak and never come close to landing - again, not even close!

Originally Posted by Mathman
For instance, a fall on an otherwise correctly done triple toe, triple Salchow, triple loop or triple flip (that is, the entrance was correct, the position and revolutions in the air were correct, but the skater couldn't hold the landing) gives you a lower score than the corresponding double.

But when you get to the more challenging triple Lutz and the much more challenging triple Axel, greater credit is given for completing the revolutions.
So it is taken into consideration. Makes a lot of sense, and that was in a way the view I took, but wasn't sure of a definition between the fall of not having enough revolutions and the just not holding the landing.

Something I will be looking for. You know this forum has been a blessing in so many ways, yet I have never doubted the "system" so much as I do now.

4. 0
Originally Posted by Red Dog
Suguri did a good job. She just didn't have an Olympic caliber program.
I so agree, just doesn't use her "spark." I think someone said lukewarm, this leaves me wondering why. What is it that just doesn't let her come alive as say... the 2002 season. The LP at olys coming out of the 2ts was "not quality on one for sure (been watching) and the SP had "way more enthusiasm" than the LP. I have been watching the 2005 worlds and the 2006 Olys over and over and the main thing that comes to mind is artistic is not as important anymore. Whether it is drama or enthusiasm, what Sonia (as I am recently finding) made so important to competition is being lost.

It seems that one "rigging" of the sport is causing it to change - which is good - but in the wrong direction. This is a one of a kind sport, I hope it stays that way!

5. 0
Originally Posted by Mathman
To me, the New Judging System is quite consistent on this. A fall on a fully rotated quad is worth about the same as a well-executed triple. A fall on a triple is worth about the same as a well-executed double.
A fall on a Quad is worth more than a clean Triple. Somehow that seems too
generous to me. I guess in all honesty I don't know enough about the difficulty of a Quad. I just feel that rotating a Quad Toe isn't THAT hard for the top-tier level skaters...it's all in being able to control it and land it. Sasha and Todd Eldredge could rotate Quads, but does that mean they really HAD the jump? Same with Jeffrey Buttle. I don't like that a supposed "risk" isn't really a risk when the skater can completely ignore the landing and still get more points than doing an element which requires more focus to do cleanly (ie. a 4 Toe vs 3 Toe).

6. 0
Originally Posted by Mathman
But any 12-year-old boy at the novice level can do a triple toe, whereas only a small handful of the best athletes in the sport can fully rotate a quad.
But how consistently can he land that Triple Toe perfectly? And I really doubt he'd be getting the height to qualify for any postive GOE.

Again, that's another thing. Why should positive GOE's be the exact same for every jump from Double-Axle and up. With the 2Axel especially I feel this is a problem...for the top male skaters it is wildly easy to add great height to that easy of a jump. But of course I've notice the judges don't really grade correctly here. Lambiel's failed 3Axles that are really 2Axles have SO much more height than a normal 2Axle from a female, but the judges haven't been giving extra points for it.

7. 0
Originally Posted by Zuranthium
A fall on a Quad is worth more than a clean Triple. Somehow that seems too
generous to me. I guess in all honesty I don't know enough about the difficulty of a Quad. I just feel that rotating a Quad Toe isn't THAT hard for the top-tier level skaters...it's all in being able to control it and land it. Sasha and Todd Eldredge could rotate Quads, but does that mean they really HAD the jump? Same with Jeffrey Buttle. I don't like that a supposed "risk" isn't really a risk when the skater can completely ignore the landing and still get more points than doing an element which requires more focus to do cleanly (ie. a 4 Toe vs 3 Toe).
I would like to see a "0" given to a jump that is ruled a fall. That would discourage people from rotating and doing jumps they cant do.

Page 4 of 4 First 1 2 3 4

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•