His comments were intelligent and insightful, as always.
I am SOOOOO glad that he brought up the issue of still getting 5 points if you fall on a Quad Toe. The negative GOE scale needs to continue on a sliding scale, not just stop at 1 for all jumps from 3Toe and up. I was a bit unsure of my own skating knowledge when I judged it wasn't fair, but it turns out the professionals agree with me and I really do understand this sport/art.
What's wrong with a skater getting points for risk. At least Buttle had the guts to try a quad and know that most likely he will fall and have to skate the rest of his program out. Evan, Matt and Weir could have done that tactic as well and most likely Evan would have gotten an Olympic medal. The only reason people are b!tching about Buttle is because Buttle was very open about trying a quad as a tactic even though he doesn't have one. However it's not any different than another skater like Joubert or Lambiel trying a quad and falling on it (or a 3 axel in Lambiel's case). I don't think anyone would argue that there should be some credit in trying risk. Under 6.0, Midori fell on her first 3 axel in the Olympics and then landed a 2nd one toward the end of a lackluster program and was awarded 5.9's.Originally Posted by Zuranthium
I think the objection is that there is no risk. A fall on a quad toe gets you 5.0 points. A successful triple toe gets you 4.0 points. Where's the risk?
True, the judges might lower your PCSs if the fall disrupts the program. Nah, ask Zhang and Zhang. The judges are more likely to reward you for giving it a go.
A quad also carries an extra reward because it does not count in with your triples, Zayak-wise. You can do quad-toe/fall/omit the triple toe that you had planned in combo, then triple flip/triple toe, then quad toe (fall) -- get credit for a phantom "+combo" even though you didn't do one -- then solo triple toe. You've got a ton of points, no Zayak problems, you're on your way to a medal!
Well there are a lot of skaters who don't skate well after they take a fall. Personally I think Buttle is one of the toughest competitors out there because he can plan a fall and then continue with his program. If falling on a quad wasn't such a big deal, then how come Weir was so chicken to try one in the LP. Especially since he was knocking out 4-3-3 and 4-3 in practice at the Olympics and they were beauties. Looking at Weir in the Games, not doing an element threw his whole program off. Other skaters made mistakes and then made even more (ie Sandhu).
The risk is that a skater can fall on a hard element and then wind up messing up an easier element because of the earlier fall.
I have to agree with Scott regarding eliminating the "reward" for falling on a quad. Unless the ISU likes TV ratings and ticket sales in the "abysmally low" rang, the ISU needs to encourage clean programs. No one likes to watch splat fests. One thing that stimulates interest in skating after a strongly skated Olys is the idea that "I want to see more of this..." However, no one is going to watch skating to see falls -- especially after these Olys when the falls (especially
D & L) posed the risk of serious injury (if people want to watch athletes get hurt, they will watch boxing or rugby, instead). Furthermore, a lot of people get their idea of skating from Olys -- if the programs are not clean, no one will want to watch pro shows, either, since they have no way of knowing how the pro shows/events differ from the Oly eligible.
Assuming you can land without hurting yourself or getting the wind knocked out of you. The Zhangs risk-taking should have had them eliminated from the Olympics, because it took them longer than the rules allowed for them to recover, but the after-effects lost them the gold medal at Worlds.
Plan a fall? I don't see how we can give serious consideration to a program where the skater choreographs deliberate falls, or to a judging system that rewards it. Do deliberately choreographed falls count as a new kind of moves-in-the-field, with extra GOE for particularly impressive ones? Frick and Frack would have loved it!
Do we want a new definition of a "balanced program?" Six jumps, four spins, two step sequences and two falls (5.0 for your planned 4T fall and 5.5 for your planned 4S fall).
As for getting the wind knocked out of you or sustaining serious injury, they could amend the costume rules to allow more substantial butt pads.
Seriously, though, I think the suggestion made above by Zuranthium simply to increase the value of negative GOEs on elements with super-high point values would satisfy the critics while still giving the quad the reward it deserves. For lower-valued elements (like double jumps and spins) a -1 really means -.7 or -.5, consistent with the point value of these elements.
If the ISU followed the same principle, and took off, say, -1.5, -3.00 and -4.5 for a badly performed quad, this would encourage skaters not only to attempt these elements but to do them well. (A fall on a quad toe would give you a total of 3.5 points -- less than a well executed triple, but still not nothing.)
MM
Last edited by Mathman; 07-03-2006 at 05:48 PM.
As Yagudin said at that infamous Euros, that it doesn't matter whether Abt skated better than me. I will have my name in the books for winning Euros. (or something to that affect)
One can't help liking an athlete that takes risks. I'm not so sure credit should be given for effort or attempt on an unsuccessful element. Maybe the penalty should be more severe. Not completing the revolutions but landing a jump will be penalized by the double whammy of downgrading and then more for overrotating. Completing the rotations of a quad but falling on the questionable landing apparently gets a skater higher results than an underrotated triple. Am I correct?
Joe
Well it's a sport and athletes fall. To encourage clean programs at the expense of risk.. well that's an exhibition not a competition.
And there is a lot of risk in putting in a quad that you don't really have. Jeff had to hope that he had that thing fully rotated or else it wouldn't even count as a quad and that the rest of his jumps would go well or else he would take too many deductions. And if Joubert or Lambiel fell on their quads, would anyone want them to be docked severely for the falls? It's just Jeff getting the heat because of the "planned" fall. However you could look at it in another way that if he doesn't try the jump, he'll never land it. If he does enough jumps , eventually he will land it in competition. He had already landed a quad before in competition. At the point of the games, Jeff had landed a competition quad and Weir hadn't, despite the fact that Weir has a much better quad then Jeff will ever have. But if you don't try the jump, you'll never get the reward.
I'm a little tired of this argumenent that under CoP, the programs are "cookie cutter" and "all look alike" and "you can't be different." If a skater is of the innovative mindset when it comes to his/her/their choreography (or if their choreographer is), then the programs will be different. JUST LIKE IT'S PRETTY MUCH ALWAYS BEEN. I would say the percentage of "different" programs out there is just as high, if not higher, than it was under 6.0 and CERTAINLY higher than in Hamilton's heyday. And on that note, what was so "different" about Hamilton's amateur skating, anyway? He just happened to do the same thing better than everyone else, IMHO. Really, from his era, the only "innovater" I can think of in the Men's field was Norbert Schramm, and in his autobiography, tho he does praise Schramm to a certain extent for "not being afraid to be different", I still detected a rather snide tone when he talked about some of Schramm's trademark "different" maneuvers.
re Buttle/"planning" a fall: I wouldn't say that he PLANS to fall, but there's certainly no real inititiative to really care if you land the thing or not, except maybe for personal pride reasons. [This applies of course not only to Jeff but to everyone else out there who keeps sticking in elements they only have about a 50% or less success rate with, knowing that they'll at least get partial credit if they revolve the thing around in the air enough.]. What I have a problem with is the deduction system, taking 1 point off for each fall. I think it should range from 1-5 points depending on the type of fall. The Zhangs, for example, only got a 1-point deduction for something that stopped the program dead, which is the same as someone else would get for one of those light plops where they get right back up and keep at it. Under those circumstances, gee, why deduct at all?
Soogar, do you really think that Jeff "planned" to fall on his quad? That's the part I can't get around. If he said, "I've landed this jump before, I've landed it in pactice (but not every time), I'm going to go out there and give it everything I've got" -- well, sure, that's great.
But the way you are talking, he said to himself, "He, he, my first elment will be my camel spin (2.5 points), my second element will be my pratt fall (5.0 points) -- oh, I've got the CoP down pat! -- all those suckers out there who are trying to stay on their feet, they just don't get it!"
I can't believe Buttle would plan a fall. He has a top skater in his own back yard that when he hits, he hits big. Sandhu will take the risk and it's 50-50. Buttle is aware of this and will go for the quad.
I'm not crazy about Falls. I just think they should be penalized more than a -1. They make an element look terrible and ruin the flow of the program, whereas many underrotated jumps landed do not interfere with the flow of the program.
Something should be said about esthetics, here.
Joe
Jeff has a horrible land rate on the quad. HIs success rate on the quad is 20% in practices. He fell on every quad he has attempted in competition except for 1. Even the commentator (I believe it was Tracy Wilson) said that Jeff had to rotate the jump or else it wouldn't count as a quad. Jeff is a smart guy who knows COP and exploits it to the fullest. That's why he does so well in competitions with his gimpy jumps.
I agree that it is a sport and athletes do fall, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea to encourage athletes to fall by encouraging them to do quads they can't do -- which is the critical difference Jeff's tactic and what occaisionally happens to Stephane or Brian. Under the 6.0 system, when falls were punished more harshly, the judges still had ways of rewarding "risk" -- but no one used a fall as a "tactic" back then
Why not just a flat out Half the points - Quad "failed"(for what ever reason) 2.5 or less? ??
That also might make more sense to the "average viewer." "Dude, like they get half the points 'cause, like, there are only so many things they can do, so they give'em som'thin. Ya Know? They did get some of it done. And the chance to make it up isn't there."
JAT
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks