Coaches' proposals 10-15: Jumps

hockeyfan228 · May 24, 2008

I think there is something inherently dishonest in the proposal to increase the value of the quads by 66.67% and the value of a triple axel by 20% because they are so difficult, but to conflate the values of the 3Lu and 3F, because skaters can't do a proper 3Lu or 3F and to eliminate features and levels on spins, spirals, and footwork and give flat base for each. A L4 spin isn't more difficult than a L1 spin? If a Lutz is so hard to do properly, then shouldn't it be worth 9 points instead of 6.7, and a 3A be worth 11-12 points instead of 9?

The problem with keeping the scale the same for Ladies and Men is that there has to be a compromise between how easy/difficult it is for the two genders to perform the elements. There have been a only handful of Ladies that have landed a 3A (fully rotated, landed properly) in competition, while almost all competitive senior men have them, with rare exceptions, while there are far more men who've landed the quad, and only one or two ratified quads among the Ladies (and none under CoP). The number of Ladies who can do a 3Lz properly is smaller than the number of Men who can do a 3Lz properly.

Mathman · May 24, 2008

hockeyfan228 said:
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)

Actually, the ISU has already taken some steps in this direction. Negative GOEs on Quads are now -1.6, -3.2 and -4.8. So under the 2008-09 scale of values, a fully rotated quad with a fall would be 9.8 - 4.8 - 1 = 4.0. Exactly the same as a 3T with 0 GOE.

The coaches propose to achieve the 25% mark "by adjusting GOEs." So they must have in mind something like -3.75, -7.50 and -11.25 for GOEs of -1, -2 and -3 respectively.

NatachaHatawa · May 24, 2008

I don't agree with this proposal. Depending on the situation, a skater should get credit for attempting something difficult or sanctioned for making a mistake. Points shouldn't be automaticly deduced. Let the judges decide.
If one takes a look at what the proposal is for replacing GoE, one can see that judges can deduce 75% of points on one element, which I think is severe enough.

NatachaHatawa · May 24, 2008

I agree with giving the jumps the same score, but they really should be defined the same way they always have.

As for deducing points or not for a wrong edge, I think we should let the judges decide. During Brian Joubert's 08 world LP he took off on wrong edges for his flips, but they were amazing. He got an automatic -1 deduction and then the judges (obviously sanctioning the wrong edge) nearly all gave him -3. He should have just got a GoE 0 to take into account the 2 factors, but as judges have to deduce points they will do so.

NatachaHatawa · May 24, 2008

hockeyfan228 said:
The problem with keeping the scale the same for Ladies and Men is that there has to be a compromise between how easy/difficult it is for the two genders to perform the elements. There have been a only handful of Ladies that have landed a 3A (fully rotated, landed properly) in competition, while almost all competitive senior men have them, with rare exceptions, while there are far more men who've landed the quad, and only one or two ratified quads among the Ladies (and none under CoP). The number of Ladies who can do a 3Lz properly is smaller than the number of Men who can do a 3Lz properly.

I agree. this clearly isn't something that has ever been taken into account.

As for the general propsosal, It think it's brilliant. Skaters should be given credit for difficult jumps.

NatachaHatawa · May 24, 2008

My opinion on this is the same as on all downgrades: these should be decided by the judges and not the technical pannel. When judges give GoE, underoatations are taken into account, so there's no need for a double penalty.

Kasey · May 24, 2008

Totally disagree with this one. It's like ebonics for figure skating. Assuming that the skaters are incapable of doing the two jumps correctly, so lets just dumb it down for them, instead of still expecting them to be properly done. Between this and the "nul for fall" proposition, I could envision a bunch of programs with double jumps (lower point values, but less chance for falls), and those double jumps not even being the more difficult ones.

Mafke · May 24, 2008

I'm reposting what I already wrote about this (in case anyone missed it and cares)

I like the idea of givine the flip and lutz the same base value, but I hate the reason they're giving.

Why I think it should be done: For the sake of argument, I'm only talking of skaters who do both jumps on the appropriate edge.
Theoretically, the lutz is 'harder' than the flip, but in competition the flip seems harder (in that AFAICT a higher percentage of flips end in falls). The timing for a flip is the trickiest of all the jumps and very susceptible the pressures of competition. The timing for a lutz isn't quite as difficult and doesn't suffer as much in competition.
I'm also for giving toeloops and salchows the same base value.

What I think of their proposal: The problem is that current training protocals all work against most skaters being able to do the right edges in both jumps. The pressure to get all the jumps as early as possible means that skaters are doing the jumps before they have the muscle memory needed to control the edges, the obvious result is they learn one or both jumps with bad technique which is then almost impossible to change.
This is largely the result of dumping figures in training. For most, even elite skaters, MITF don't really incorporate edge control into the skater's fundamental technique.
Yes, some skaters do get wonderful edge control with MITF and some skaters who were good at figures flutzed (Dagmar Lurz for example) but those are exceptions and not what you want to base policy on.
Overall nothing makes edge control a part of a skater's muscle memory quite like figures.

Joesitz (RIP) · May 24, 2008

NatachaHatawa said:
I agree with giving the jumps the same score, but they really should be defined the same way they always have.

One has to really understand the Lutz. It is an original jump like no other. Granted, it is a difficult jump but that's what Sport is all about. For whom are we simplifying it?and for what reason are we simplifying it? It's a jump that separates the ladies from the girls, and the men from the boys. I say keep it in as is, and all those who can not do a perfect lutz should not even try one. Faking an attempt is well known. There are many ways to make points in the CoP without a lutz.

As for the Flip, That is nothing more than a Salchow with a toe off. However, where one skids a long on a seemingly back inside edge for a salchow, one can not skid it for the toe off salchow (flip),

Joe

Joesitz (RIP) · May 24, 2008

NatachaHatawa said:
My opinion on this is the same as on all downgrades: these should be decided by the judges and not the technical pannel. When judges give GoE, underoatations are taken into account, so there's no need for a double penalty.

If we get the Jumbothon working we can see how the Tech Panel works.:agree::agree: :bow:

Joesitz (RIP) · May 24, 2008

^^^
About the Ladies. I believe they learn figure skating faster than the men. So what's good for the gander is good for the goose.

what happens later on is that the men specialize in jumping whereas the ladies take more interest in pretending to be ballerinas.

Still later on, both develop individual styles (hopefully)

I don't see any reason that a female skater can not be equal to a male skater in jumping. The ladies could begin practicing quads at the same time the men do.

Joe

Mafke · May 24, 2008

Proposal #14 Revised deductions for falls

14. Deductions for falls.

A penalty of 0.5 shall be applied each time a skater falls in an element. A penalty of 1.0 shall be applied each time a skater falls outside an element.

Mathman · May 24, 2008

14. Deductions for falls.

A penalty of 0.5 shall be applied each time a skater falls in an element. A penalty of 1.0 shall be applied each time a skater falls outside an element.

So combined with their proposal to give zero points if you fall on a jump, this gives you a net total of negative .5 for the element, regardless of any other considertions.

Tinymavy15 · May 24, 2008

wow! people on this board sure are passionate about jump downgrades! 4 pages and counting...

gocaroline · May 24, 2008

:agree: I am totally up for Mafke's "no score for the jump with a fall".

ChrisH · May 25, 2008

Revise the Scale of Values for jumps.

T 0.40 1.30 4.50 15.00
S 0.40 1.50 5.20 16.60
Lo 0.50 1.70 5.90 18.30
F 0.70 2.20 7.30 21.00
Lz 0.70 2.20 7.30 21.00
A 0.80 2.70 9.00 24.00

With these base values:

* The base values are consistent for all jumps from 1T through 4A, in the standard order of perceived difficulty ...
* The base value of the solo jumps increases exponentially.

Define the values of GoE points [for all elements, not just jumps?]

The proposal is to revise the Scale of Values tables to use the following instead (rounded to the nearest 0.1 point):

- 3 is 25% of base value
- 2 is 50% of base value
- 1 is 75% of base value
0 is 100% of base value
+ 1 is 125% of base value
+ 2 is 150% of base value
+ 3 is 175% of base value

This proportional approach solves other mathematical problems in the system.

I prefer this approach of consistency and proportionality. The aspect of their proposal which I disagree with is the size of the exponential growth of the base value of the jumps. They propose a roughly constant exponential growth of 3. Quads are 3 times more valuable than triples, which are 3 times more valuable than doubles, which in turn are 3 times more valuable than singles. So from the top to the bottom, quads are roughly 27(!) times more valuable than singles. The problem with that is it overemphasizes just one aspect of skating, namely the number of rotations of jumps. There are other aspects to skating besides jumps and other aspects to jumps besides rotations. Let's say a skater does a single that is in every aspect the same as a quad (entry, takeoff, air position, height and distance, landing, and exit) except for the rotations. Such a quad should NOT be worth 27 times more than such a single.

The growth rate of the ISU scale of values is roughly 3 x 3 x 2 = 18. More reasonable but still too high. The ISU scale of values also compensates by having proportionally high GoEs for singles decreasing to proportionally low GoEs for quads. So with the GoEs figured in, an exceptional 4T is worth 8 times as much as an exceptional 1T.

I rather the growth rate be roughly 3 x 2.5 x 2 = 15. That is, the growth rate would consistently decrease. The coaches proposed revision to the GoEs I think would fit into that.

Mathman · May 25, 2008

ChrisH said:
I rather the growth rate be roughly 3 x 2.5 x 2 = 15. That is, the growth rate would consistently decrease. The coaches proposed revision to the GoEs I think would fit into that.

I agree with ChrisH on this.

One usually expects the "learning curve" to flatten out at the upper end. With the coaches' proposed scale of values, the hardest jumps become the do-or-die determinant of the winner, rather than the icing on the cake of an overall outstanding performance.

Mafke · May 26, 2008

Mathman said:
That's the part that still isn't clear to me. Do the 10 individuals who signed this document represent the general sentiment of the whole figure skating coaching fraternity?
I would be surprised if a majority of all international figure skating coaches think that the distinction between a Lutz and a flip should be abolished, or that the base value of a quad toe should be raised to 15.0 (from the current 9.8.)

On lutz vs flip: That's one I assume is there just to be thrown out at the earliest opportunity (or they're getting all in-your-face about it but are really just hoping to go back to the status quo before last season).

I don't know about the quad points issue. I hate quads so I don't think of the issue rationally. I wouldn't mind raising their point value if a fully rotated quad with a fall get next to no points.

And don't underestimate the power that a small group of high profile influential people can have on others.

Kinga · May 26, 2008

11. In view of the never ending controversy over the starting edge of the Lutz and the flip jumps it is proposed of getting rid of the take-off edge requirements for these jumps.

No no! This promotes flutzers and punishes those skaters who have perfect technique in both flip and lutz.

Mathman said:
"An underlying agenda here is to force the skater to do all of the jumps."
Yes, if by "all the triples" you mean 3T, 3S, 3Lo and the new jump, the 3flutz-flatz-lip.

Exactly!

Joesitz (RIP) · May 26, 2008

Getting Rid of the Takeoff Edge. That means giving up the name of the jump. Whether you believe it or not. All jumps look alike in the air and all jumps land on a back outside edge

It is the Takeoff Edge that give the jump a name..

So what will you call this new jump?

And I would propose that all the jumps be included in a routine as single jumps as well as those strange combos.

Joe

Coaches' proposals 10-15: Jumps

hockeyfan228

Mathman

NatachaHatawa

NatachaHatawa

NatachaHatawa

NatachaHatawa

Kasey

Mafke

Joesitz (RIP)

Joesitz (RIP)

Joesitz (RIP)

Mafke

Mathman

Tinymavy15

Sinnerman for the win

gocaroline

ChrisH

Mathman

Mafke

Kinga

Joesitz (RIP)

Similar threads

Connect with us