A fall should be awarded no points, but I think that a two-footed landing deserves some credit, if only to count towards the Zayak rule.
Coaches' proposals 10-15: Jumps
- Thread starter visaliakid
- Start date
A fall should be awarded no points, but I think that a two-footed landing deserves some credit, if only to count towards the Zayak rule.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
This hurts those skaters who have both Lutz and Flip, and can use each at the higher base values as a solo jump and in combination, and get bonus points if done in the second half of the program.
The most a lady without a 3A can do under this rule is:
3Lz or 3F combo
3Lz or 3F solo
3Lo combo
3Lo solo
3S
3T
2A
35.6 base if 3Lz and 3F have the same base (6) or 34.6 base if 3Lz has a base of 6 and 3F has a base of 5.5.
compared to:
3Lz combo
3Lz solo
3F combo
3F solo
3Lo
3Sa
2A
37.6 base
That's a difference in base score (without bonuses) of 2 points, or more than 5% of base, assuming that the 3Lz and 3F have the same base value, and a different of 3 points, which is about 8% of base, just for jumps.
It's an even greater difference in the new proposed values.
This will bring the base of skaters who don't have more than 3Lo's closer to the top skaters, except those who can rotate and land a 3A.
An underlying agenda here is to force the skater to do all of the jumps. Take away the ability to do two lutzes and two flips in 7 jumping passes with the requirement to do an axel jump, and the skater is left with 2A's in place of any jumps s/he wants to leave out.
For the men, it's worse, since they have an additional jumping pass, but the same restrictions on repeating a jump.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
As I understand the proposal, the approach wouldn't matter either. Any toe-assisted jump that lands on the opposite foot would qualify.
To me, there is something upside-down about the rationale for this proposal. According to the coaches' statement, the reason for suggesting the change is because of the "never ending controversy over the starting edge."
There is no controversy over which edge goes with which jump, nor over what is expected of a skater who essays a Lutz or a flip jump. The only debate is over the question of how severe a penalty to apply when they don't do it right. Here there is disagreement between the hard-noses and the enablers, with the present edge-call thing an attempt at compromise. The coaches' argument seems to be that since we cannot achieve unanimity, let's chuck the whole thing.
I am trying to think through the effect that this propsal would have on programs. As Hockeyfan details above, under the coaches' proposal we wouldn't see any more ladies' programs with jump content dominated by two flips and two flutzes. Instead, I suppose they would go with two flatzes and two loops, to maximize points.
(I have another idea. Let's call coasting along on a flat a "change-of-edge spiral."
)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
With the rule that only either the lutz or flip can be performed solo or in combination/sequence, both Buttle and Joubert would have had to replace a jump to avoid breaking the Zayak rule. Buttle had 3F and 3Lz in combination and a solo 3Lz. Joubert had 3F in combination, a solo 3Lz, and a solo 3F.
Assuming that both replaced replaced their 3rd lutz/flip with a 2A at the same point in the program, with second half bonus calculated, Buttle's base score would have been 60.3 (57.7+2.6 bonus) and Joubert's would have been 59.1 (56+3.1 bonus). This is compared to the actual base of 74.93 for Buttle vs. 68.39 for Joubert, or 1.2 differential under the new calculations vs. 6.54 actual.
What is the likelihood that Joubert would have replaced the extra 3F with the 2A? I think it would be more likely for him to try another quad, which, if he did the 4S, for example, didn't fall and rotated it, would have netted him another 13.9 base over the 2A Buttle would have attempted, which would have obliterated Buttle's GOE advantage of 3.64, even if Joubert had a sloppy, but rotated 4S. Plus with the rule that there wouldn't be any more edge calls, the difference in GOE would have been that much smaller, since Joubert received two, losing at total of 1.86 points, leaving Buttle 1.78 points ahead in GOE. Then take away the proposed feature values that increase levels, and Joubert wins the FS.
That kind of math would not have been out of Joubert's reach.
Assuming that both replaced replaced their 3rd lutz/flip with a 2A at the same point in the program, with second half bonus calculated, Buttle's base score would have been 60.3 (57.7+2.6 bonus) and Joubert's would have been 59.1 (56+3.1 bonus). This is compared to the actual base of 74.93 for Buttle vs. 68.39 for Joubert, or 1.2 differential under the new calculations vs. 6.54 actual.
What is the likelihood that Joubert would have replaced the extra 3F with the 2A? I think it would be more likely for him to try another quad, which, if he did the 4S, for example, didn't fall and rotated it, would have netted him another 13.9 base over the 2A Buttle would have attempted, which would have obliterated Buttle's GOE advantage of 3.64, even if Joubert had a sloppy, but rotated 4S. Plus with the rule that there wouldn't be any more edge calls, the difference in GOE would have been that much smaller, since Joubert received two, losing at total of 1.86 points, leaving Buttle 1.78 points ahead in GOE. Then take away the proposed feature values that increase levels, and Joubert wins the FS.
That kind of math would not have been out of Joubert's reach.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
Buttle had a 10.18 point technical advantage in the FS. If Joubert had substituted his lowest-scoring jump -- 4.29 for the 2A/1T -- for a 4S 9.5 points, and let's even assume that he did the 4S in the second half (base of 10.5), and had gotton +2 in GOE, he would have gained a net of 8.21, or less than two points under Buttle's technical score.
The question is whether Joubert's PCS would have been given the quad bonus as well, giving him the edge in the FS. (Joubert had an advantage of .58 in PCS.)
The question is whether Joubert's PCS would have been given the quad bonus as well, giving him the edge in the FS. (Joubert had an advantage of .58 in PCS.)
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
coaches just don't want to teach the technique, it sounds... they've been complaining about that for a while now...
reading the books I have, hearing the interviews I have, it just sounds like coaches don't seem to think it's important to teach the basic technique (I'm American so I assume most of the coaches the books/interviews refer to American coaches, or maybe N. American coaches) *shrugs* it's a natural assumption on my part...
reading the books I have, hearing the interviews I have, it just sounds like coaches don't seem to think it's important to teach the basic technique (I'm American so I assume most of the coaches the books/interviews refer to American coaches, or maybe N. American coaches) *shrugs* it's a natural assumption on my part...
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
One of the biggest complainers about the edge calls has been Rafael Arutunian, who certainly is not an American coach, regardless of where he teaches.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
OT: but IMHO Kazakova is the one who you should be using here. Berezhnaya and Totmianina could have been closer to the ice, but they had a fairly decent repertoire of tricks within their death spirals. There are junior skaters who do the death spiral better than Kazakova
I don't like the idea of giving no points in case of a fall. That would be like not jumping at all, but jumping and falling is obviously much harder than not jumping. Maybe 1 or 2 points, but nothing seems a bit unfair to me. Surely it will prevent skaters from attempting a jump which is very risky for them. But still...
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
There are definitions of each element in figure skating and which are scored with their base values. If the definition is not satisfied, then the element was not executed. For jumps, it is not a question of height, distance, underrotation, wrong edge take-off, etc., it's about completing the jump. Attempts are not a completed jump. A fall, among other things, is not the element by definition and the base value should be zero.
I agree with the proposal. It's time figure skating grew up, and stop being namby pamby about how difficult it is.
If a combo is not complete there was no combo. Am I correct?
Joe
I agree with the proposal. It's time figure skating grew up, and stop being namby pamby about how difficult it is.
If a combo is not complete there was no combo. Am I correct?
Joe
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
The proposal as I read it seems to be trying to get rid of the flutz and lip. Another scheme to make figure skating a not-so-difficult sport, imo.
Joe
Joe
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2007
- Country
-
To some extent I do agree with the double penalty, I just don't think that the -GOE should be manditory and skaters should be able to recieve +GOE for underrotated jumps.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
I agree with the proposal but I would like to have the entire base values restudied. I think this is about the Quad but I believe other elements should also be considered.
Personally, I like the idea that no particular element will give victory to a skater. Figure Skating contains many fascets. Let's keep it that way.
Joe
Personally, I like the idea that no particular element will give victory to a skater. Figure Skating contains many fascets. Let's keep it that way.
Joe
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
For a combo when the skater does the first element but falls on the second, I'm give them credit for the first jump, nul points for the second and count it as a combo for zayak purposes.
spins are a little tricker, outright falls on spins are rare (usually if a skater falls on a spin it's going into the spin, IIRC Claudia Leistner did that in Calgary 88)
footwork is harder still but my inclination is to give nul points.
spins are a little tricker, outright falls on spins are rare (usually if a skater falls on a spin it's going into the spin, IIRC Claudia Leistner did that in Calgary 88)
footwork is harder still but my inclination is to give nul points.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
Keep the edge calls. As some one who struggles not to flutz, it is very helpful to have edge calls. It keeps me motivated to leran to take off on the correct edge.
If we gave the flip and lutz the same scale of values, skaters would do more flips because they might get edge calls on their lutzes and get more points for doing flips.
THe SOV for the lutz and the flip should remain the same. If they are increased, they should be increased by the same amount.
If we gave the flip and lutz the same scale of values, skaters would do more flips because they might get edge calls on their lutzes and get more points for doing flips.
THe SOV for the lutz and the flip should remain the same. If they are increased, they should be increased by the same amount.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
The problem is that how do you give +GOE to a downgraded jump? It needs to be given -GOE because it isn't fully rotated. It has a maximum base starting value of +1, because with such a serious error on the landing, it can't start with a +2 or +3. Then add the serious error GOE (-2), and you're left with a max value of -1.
Under the combination of proposals, an underrotated 4T gets a maximum value of 25% of 15, or 3.75 points.
* That is 1.25 (25%) less than a fully rotated quad with a fall gets under the current system (9-3-1)
* That is .75 (25%) points more than an underrotated 4T gets with -1 GOE (4-1)
* That is 1.75 (87.5%) points more than an underrotated 4T gets with -2 GOE (4-2).
An underrotated 3Lz would get .25 of 7.3, or 1.83
*That is .17 (8.5%) less than a fall on a full rotated 3Lz (6-3-1).
*That is .23 (14.8%) more than an underrotated 3Lz gets with -1 GOE (1.9-.3)
*That is .53 (41%) more than an underrotated 3Lz gets with -2 GOE (1.9-.6)
Under the combination of proposals, an underrotated 4T gets a maximum value of 25% of 15, or 3.75 points.
* That is 1.25 (25%) less than a fully rotated quad with a fall gets under the current system (9-3-1)
* That is .75 (25%) points more than an underrotated 4T gets with -1 GOE (4-1)
* That is 1.75 (87.5%) points more than an underrotated 4T gets with -2 GOE (4-2).
An underrotated 3Lz would get .25 of 7.3, or 1.83
*That is .17 (8.5%) less than a fall on a full rotated 3Lz (6-3-1).
*That is .23 (14.8%) more than an underrotated 3Lz gets with -1 GOE (1.9-.3)
*That is .53 (41%) more than an underrotated 3Lz gets with -2 GOE (1.9-.6)
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
And also, note that a skater with this jump layout cannot do a triple-triple. In fact, under the coaches' proposal, it is impossible for a skater (lady) to do a 7-triple program, unless she has a triple Axel.
Yes, if by "all the triples" you mean 3T, 3S, 3Lo and the new jump, the 3flutz-flatz-lip.
To me, what is really does is force a skater to do a triple Axel if she wants to separate herself from the pack.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
Touche!
