Value of the Double Axel increased to 3.5 - what about the rest of the doubles?

Zuranthium · May 15, 2007

Value of the Double Axel increased to 3.5 - what about the rest of the doubles?

It seems to me that the value of all the other Double jumps should be increased considering the extra .2 points that the Double Axle was just gifted with. This is something I've wanted to see even before the Double Axle change, however.

Right now I think it's a problem that doing a Double Loop in combination is only worth .2 more than if you did a toeloop (1.5 points vs. 1.3). The difficulty of doing something like a 3Lutz/2Loop in comparision to a 3Lutz/2Toe is worth more than just .2 extra points, imo. Something like this would be good:

Toeloop - 1.3
Salchow - 1.4
Flip - 1.6
Loop - 1.8
Lutz - 2.0

EDIT: Also, read on the second page about underrotated jumps getting their own points.

~Z

Mathman · May 15, 2007

I like it!

About the double Axel jump, the ISU has always regarded it as the "easiest triple" rather than the "hardest double." If you look at the table of values, it always goes like this:

...
2F
2Lz
----------
2A
3T
3S
...
----------

Not

...
2F
2Lz
2A
----------
3T
3S
....
-----------

So I suppose this is the reason for upping the value of the double Axel to 3.5, to put it in line with the "other triples."

I'm not sure I like that reasoning (if that's really what they had in mind). They didn't do 3A's and quads that way:

3A = 7.5
4T = 9.0
4S = 9.5, etc.

I also think there should be a bonus for presenting all five triple and a double Axel (ladies) and all six triples (men).

Joesitz (RIP) · May 15, 2007

When anyone falls (seldom) on a double axel, it is for me a boo boo. I think the jump in today's world is simply a part of footwork.

Joe

Tinymavy15 · May 15, 2007

more people fall on double axel than you think. Maybe not the world cahmpions, but to the girls at natioanls, the double axel is a difficult jump. Look at Caroline Zhang. She fell on the double axel in her Natioanls short program and it probably cost her the title.

Mathman · May 15, 2007

What I like about the double Axel is that, to the audience, it makes the maximum impact with the least danger. To me, a nice double Axel looks just as pretty as a triple jump, especially when it is timed to a musical highlight.

A CoP question. In the olden days skaters would sometimes use double jumps and single Axels just as a part of the overall choreography, not necessarily for the "look at me jumping" effect. If a skater did, say, a double flip just for the fun of it, would that use up one of his jumping passes?

Zuranthium · May 15, 2007

Mathman said:
If a skater did, say, a double flip just for the fun of it, would that use up one of his jumping passes?

Yes. Although, you can still do single axles and plain double jumps as part of your choreography...they just have to come after ALL of your real jumping passes.

~Z

Zuranthium · May 15, 2007

Mathman said:
I also think there should be a bonus for presenting all five triple and a double Axel (ladies) and all six triples (men).

Yes, agreed. Give them a bonus point. It would have to be decided as to what constitutes "presenting them", though. IMO, having greater than a -1 GOE on the element. Doing a Quad should also count as the required Triple of that type (so Joubert at Cup of Russia, even though he doubled out on both his is Triple Toeloops, would still get the bonus since he did two QUAD toeloops).

~Z

Mathman · May 15, 2007

As for how hard the double Axel is, just for fun I checked the Worlds ladies SP protocols. Of the top 12, all except 1 (Meier) scored above the 3.30 base mark.

Of the bottom 12, all except 2 scored below the 3.30 base mark (those 2 had 3.30 exactly).

Of the 46 ladies in the competition, 10 either fell or popped the jump.

With a few notable exceptions (Yan Liu did a fine double Axel but came 21st in the SP; Alissa Czisny got 0.00 for a total pop), you could almost use the double Axel alone for placements.

gsrossano · May 15, 2007

I am not impressed with this change. According to ISU 1445 is was done to tweak the value of the 2A compared to CCoSp4 and SpSq4. Any attempt to get the points of all the jumps and jump combinations consistent with the points for the spins and the sequences is futile. After 4 years now, the SoV isn't even consistent for the jumps alone, no less the jumps relative to everything else.

The SoV is like trying to adjust the shape of a balloon. You can push in on it one place, but it just bulges out with a problem somewhere else.

Also, as is to be expected, the ISU is only thinking about how this affects the big kids. For those of us who have to worry about all the divisions in USFSA competition this is not a welcome change. Now a -3 2A gets 1.4 points, which is more than a +1 1A. and only 0.4 less than a +2 1A. This only encourages the lower level skaters (Juvenile and Intermediate) even more than before to place difficulty done badly above quality skating, and developing good skating technique. For the developmental levels this is a bad thing

Zuranthium · May 15, 2007

gsrossano said:
Also, as is to be expected, the ISU is only thinking about how this affects the big kids. For those of us who have to worry about all the divisions in USFSA competition this is not a welcome change. Now a -3 2A gets 1.4 points, which is more than a +1 1A. and only 0.4 less than a +2 1A. This only encourages the lower level skaters (Juvenile and Intermediate) even more than before to place difficulty done badly above quality skating, and developing good skating technique. For the developmental levels this is a bad thing

Although I disagree with your general point (it's a coach's job to make sure the student develops properly, the points don't affect that), I do think that the negative GOE values for the double axle should be increased to .8. Negative GOE for Triple Toe should also be decreased to .9 (you currently get 0 points if you fall on a Triple Toe...that isn't right).

~Z

antmanb · May 16, 2007

Joesitz said:
When anyone falls (seldom) on a double axel, it is for me a boo boo. I think the jump in today's world is simply a part of footwork.

Joe

Tell that to the thousands of kids in the rinks busting a gut to land a double axel. Just becuase a handful of skaters in the world are able to whip off a double axel with ease, doesn't mean its easy or that anyone can do it if they try.

Ant

antmanb · May 16, 2007

Zuranthium said:
Although I disagree with your general point (it's a coach's job to make sure the student develops properly, the points don't affect that), I do think that the negative GOE values for the double axle should be increased to .8. Negative GOE for Triple Toe should also be decreased to .9 (you currently get 0 points if you fall on a Triple Toe...that isn't right).

~Z

What??

Why on earth should you get any points for falling on a triple toe? - Fine you got into the air and (if ratified) presumably got the full three revolutions in the air - if you can't hold the landing why should you get any points?

Ant

gkelly · May 16, 2007

antmanb said:
What??

Why on earth should you get any points for falling on a triple toe? - Fine you got into the air and (if ratified) presumably got the full three revolutions in the air - if you can't hold the landing why should you get any points?

Ant

Because every other jump works out to still have some points left over after deducting the -3 GOE (which is less than 3.00 points for double and single jumps) and the 1.00 fall deduction. Triple toe is the only one with no net points for the effort.

Quads and triple axels should probably have more than 3.00 deducted for the -3 GOE though; they're worth so many points to start with that they're still worth quite a lot even with a fall.

Zuranthium · May 16, 2007

gkelly said:
Because every other jump works out to still have some points left over after deducting the -3 GOE (which is less than 3.00 points for double and single jumps) and the 1.00 fall deduction. Triple toe is the only one with no net points for the effort.

Quads and triple axels should probably have more than 3.00 deducted for the -3 GOE though; they're worth so many points to start with that they're still worth quite a lot even with a fall.

Yes, agreed on all of this.

Increase the negative GOE of Triple Axle to 1.1 and increase the negative GOE of Quad Toe/Sal to 1.2 and Quad Loop/Flip/Lutz to 1.3.

~Z

gsrossano · May 16, 2007

Zuranthium said:
(it's a coach's job to make sure the student develops properly, the points don't affect that)~Z

That is rather naive on several levels. Coaches of Juvenile skaters, for example, are under tremendous pressure (from parents) to include the 2A whether the skater has the jump or not. There was a longstanding rule (no more since IJS) that a poorly executed double should not be worth more than a well executed single (and same for triple vs. double). Yet the worst possible 2A (not just a poorly executed one, but the worst possible one) gets more points than a well executed (+1) single -- mainly because the point reduction for negative GoEs is too low for the 2A. When they raised the base value for the jump, they should have also increased the reductions for the negative GoEs.

I think most officials would agree with me that in the developmental levels, the emphasis should be on quality over badly done dificulty, and the rules should be structured to reward that.

Zuranthium · May 16, 2007

gsrossano said:
mainly because the point reduction for negative GoEs is too low for the 2A.

Uhhh, yeah, and I SAID THAT. So what are you trying to argue.

~Z

gsrossano · May 16, 2007

Perhaps there are some invisible words I just can't see on post #10, but all I see there is increasing the -1 GoE to 0.8 points for 2A. I would claim the negative GoEs for the 2A, should be -1.0, -2.0 and -3.0 points, so the -3 2A gets 0.5 points.

gkelly · May 16, 2007

gsrossano said:
Yet the worst possible 2A (not just a poorly executed one, but the worst possible one) gets more points than a well executed (+1) single -- mainly because the point reduction for negative GoEs is too low for the 2A.

The worst possible 2A is also probably underrotated and will be scored as a 1A with -3 GOE.

At the few club competitions I've attended lately, I'm seeing fewer attempts at 2axels and triples from intermediates who under the old system would have put out the jumps in competition just to show that they were close even though they weren't rotating the jumps yet. In the new system it's not worth their while to try if there's a high likelihood of the jump being downgraded.

I have seen several intentional single axels worth +1 and one that I would have thought worthy of +2. That was in a 6.0 competition, though, so I don't know how the judges would have scored it under IJS.

Joesitz (RIP) · May 16, 2007

gkelly said:
The worst possible 2A is also probably underrotated and will be scored as a 1A with -3 GOE.

Good grief, what is left of the score at 1A -3?

Joe

Mathman · May 16, 2007

Joesitz said:
Good grief, what is left of the score at 1A -3?

As I understand it, for low scoring elements, even though the judges enter -3 GOE, the computer factors that to a smaller amount.

A single Axel is worth 0.8 base value. -3 GOE translates into -0.5, so you get a total of 0.3 for the element.

However, if you also fall, that's a full -1.00 deduction on top of that, so you end up with -0.7 in all for your effort.

Value of the Double Axel increased to 3.5 - what about the rest of the doubles?

Zuranthium

Match Penalty

Mathman

Joesitz (RIP)

Tinymavy15

Sinnerman for the win

Mathman

Zuranthium

Match Penalty

Zuranthium

Match Penalty

Mathman

gsrossano

Zuranthium

Match Penalty

antmanb

antmanb

gkelly

Zuranthium

Match Penalty

gsrossano

Zuranthium

Match Penalty

gsrossano

gkelly

Joesitz (RIP)

Mathman

Similar threads

Connect with us